Re: En: species, subspecies, strains, populations, races etc.

[Piabinha@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/24/1999 12:35:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
Lcrabo@aol.com writes:

> By the way, I believe that humans easily satisfy classical criteria for 
>  subspecies, although we are blurring the lines by moving around so much in 
>  recent times.  We get around that by calling ourselves different races - a 
>  category without taxonomic recognition.  However, I'm with Mike W. in 
>  considering all of us to be the same family.

i disagree.  it's not easy at all to distinguish human"races" to classify 
them as "subspecies."  i think we are even more closely related than at the 
"subspecies" level.  and to delineate these distinctions would be close to 
impossible.  the "classical" view of "australoid," "mongoloid," "negroid" and 
"caucasoid" for example is highly problematic.  we don't know for sure that 
such groupings are legitimate.  are there more groups than those four?  where 
do you delineate the "borders" of such groups in africa, india, russia, 
pacific islands (for example)?

tsuh yang chen, nyc, USA


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@listbox.com.
For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
email apisto-request@listbox.com.
Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!