No. The term “breed” in the domestic animal world (as noted by others above) means that the group is kept completely isolated from other groups. Once a siamese and a tabby reproduce, the “breed” is broken.
No human group has ever been completely isolated from another group (as far as we know). It might be true that some are more islotated than others, but you’d have to deliberately, and forcefully, isolate people in order to form “breeds”. Then you’d have to meticulously maintain pedigree records, like dog and cat breeders do.
Even your “African pygamy” example is erroneous. There is no evidence that the “pygmies” have maintained a complete genetic isolation from their taller neighbors.
Nope. Neither area has ever been completely isolated. The Eskimo and Amerinds came over in different migrations. It’s easy for even the layman to see that Eskimos are more closely reltated to the modern inhabitants of Siberia than they are to Amerinds. And yet Eskimo and Amerinds cannot be considered isolated breeding populations.
So, unless you want to categorize Amerinds with East Asians, you cannot call that a breeding population. And once you include East Asians, you have to include South Asians, and Euraisians, and… see where this leads?
There are no human breeds because humans have not been systematically bred. Breeding is a planned program, designed specifically and explicitly to maintain, enhance, diminish, and/or eliminate certain traits. It is controlled and driven by considerations that are completely independent of the choices that indivuals within a breeding population might make on their own devices.
Slight nit-pick. Not many anthropologists use that term anymore, prefering the simpler H. sapiens. The supbspecies designation goes back to when Neanderthals were classified as H. sapiens neanderthalensis. Most (although not all) anthropoligists now classify Neanderthals as H. neanderthalensis, a different species, so there is no need for a subspecies designation.
You might see the term “archaic H. sapiens” to designate some of the older fossils, but I’ve never seen the subspecies H. sapiens archaensis used.
No you don’t. Sorry I lost the cite for this (although I did save the image), but there was a study done (most likely genetic analysis) where a cladogram of human groups was produced. They found that Amerinds are a sister taxon to a clade that includes Eskimos, Siberians, Japanese, Ainu, Samoyede, etc…, which together comprise a sister taxon to - surprise - the “Caucasoid” taxon which includes Europeans, Lapps, Indians, Arabs, North Africans, etc. Together these people (referred to in the cladogram as “Northern Eurasian”) are a sister taxon to the S. E. Asian/Australian Aborigine/Pacific Islander group. In other words, S.E. Asians and their relatives are basal to all Eurasians/Americans. So, according to this cladogram, the northeast and southeast Asian populations aren’t even related to each other.
In other words, there is a natural grouping of humans that includes Amerinds, Eskimos, and Siberians while excluding South Asians and Europeans.
As Dogface indicates, “breed” specifically implies artificial selection (that is, deliberate selection by humans) rather than natural selection. Although there may have been some sporadic attempts at this through history (e.g. supposed selective breeding of slaves in the southern U.S., or Nazi attempts to promote breeding for “Aryan” characteristics), these have never been carried out for long enough or with sufficient selective intensity to create anything resembling a breed of domestic animals. Creation of a breed usually requires very close inbreeding (parents to offspring and sibling to sibling), very strong artificial selection, and many generations.
Some human populations have occasionally been isolated from extensive interbreeding with others for some time (e.g. Amish and Mennonites in the U.S., Kuna Indians in Panama), resulting in a degree of inbreeding and the expression of some recessive characters that are rare in other populations. However, even these do not come anywhere close to the degree of inbreeding and genetic and morphological uniformity found in purebred domestic animals.
You’re nit-picking me, and you say that SE Asians aren’t related related to NE Asians? Please.
Doesn’t matter. The details aren’t important, only that none of these groups has been isolated from the others. Cladograms within species do not rule out interbreeding, they only show general population relatedness.
Depending on who you talk to/read there are 3 to 5 races of H. Sapiens. Technically, these could be sub-species I suppose, not breeds, though. Breeds are purposefully bred for certain genetic traits. There is too much overlap in extant human pops. to really classify sub-species, imho.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. In fact, I also recall seeing something to that effect in a genetics textbook in a used book store (and kicking myself now for not buying it). However there is doubtless plenty of cross-breeding there, especially in China which is known to be genetically diverse. The web site seems to have up and disappeared :eek: since 2001. Want me to send you the cladogram image?
Okay, so they’re not breeds. But does that mean they are not subspecies?
You didn’t get the joke (or I didn’t explain it well). I was commenting on the literal meaning of your original statement about the populations “not being related”. Of course they’re related! You’re right about SE and NE Asiains as long as you’re talking about extreme North East Asians (as opposed to, for example, Norther Chinese).
No I didn’t get that you were making a joke. :o My mistake.
Thank you, although that chart differs in quite a few places from the one I found. Seems like the relatedness isn’t so clear cut, which isn’t a surprise given 1.) the interbreeding you mentioned, and 2.) the fact that it is similarly difficult to construct a clade of Eutherian mammals.
I could see 5 of them (American, N.E. Asian, Caucasoid, S.E. Asian, and African) very clearly defined in the cladogram - but then these new data do not show such clean subdivisions.
This is one of those times where being able to attach a file would be nice, since the original source site is nowhere to be found.
Here is the chart. It does indeed show quite a bit of diversity in Africa. Now if one were to classify subspecies, where would the line be drawn - either there are just a few or there are 38 of them.
So much for the Linnaean classification system I guess. :smack:
