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

[Lcrabo@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/24/99 6:50:30 AM, you wrote:

<<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)?>>

We better quit this before we get in trouble!  Butterfly taxonomists have 
been very liberal with their use of subspecies, and there are many examples 
of names used for populations along clines.  I don't agree with this usage, 
but this type of classification could easily be applied to humans.  Moth 
taxonomists have recently restricted the subspecies to geographically 
isolated and recognizable populations.  This too could be applied to people, 
especially on islands such as Australia.  Ok, no more....

Lars


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