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

[Scot Gillespie <Scot.Gillespie@epsedin.co.uk>]

Scott:

As I understand it, there are a whole bunch of minor characteristics;
antigens, enzymes, inherited "diseases" etc.. which can be found in higher
ratios in isolated populations of humankind, and the odd gene. But these
tend to be found non-exclusively within what would be considered ethnic
groups, i.e. they do invariably crop up on a world wide basis when someone
gets round to looking for them elsewhere.  

On a more apisto point, do you know of anyone doing any DNA work on our
dwarf finned relatives ;-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott McLaughlin [mailto:relli@aye.net]
Sent: 24 November 1999 05:21
To: apisto@majordomo.pobox.com
Subject: Re: En: species, subspecies, strains, populations, races etc.


I agree that this issue could get ugly, but I think it is worthy of
discussion
as far as taxonomy is concerned. It is intresting to note that there are
distinct
genetic differences in certain groups of people. Blood antigens for instance
are a very important place that this is expressed. Eskimos have some very
unique
genes as do certain jewish populations, and I believe if memory serves the
amish
posess an extremely rare blood group antigen in certain populations. This is
absolutely not indicative of any inferiority or superiority, but it does
illustrate
that there are distinctly different kinds of humans. We need to grow up and
not associate a measure of worth with these differences, but there is no
doubt
that we as a species are made up of a group of subspecies or varieties or
whatever
nomenclature is appropriate. Much like there are different varieties of a
given
species of apitsos or any other animal. 

>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"!

>
>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      


--------------------------
Aye Net WebMail 2.0
http://www.aye.net/getmail


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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"!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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"!