posted
Range map of the giraffe divided by subspecies
I ask Faheemdunkers not to comment on this at least until some other people post, we know your opinion is yes there are human sub species and sub species in this case is synonymous with race. I want to see what other people think.
subpecies
In biological classification, subspecies (abbreviated "subsp." or "ssp."; plural: "subspecies") is either a taxonomic rank subordinate to species, or a taxonomic unit in that rank. A subspecies cannot be recognized in isolation: a species will either be recognized as having no subspecies at all or two or more (including any that are extinct), never just one.
Organisms that belong to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they often do not interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation or other factors. The differences between subspecies are usually less distinct than the differences between species, but more distinct than the differences between breeds or races (races can be assigned to different subspecies if taxonomically different). The characteristics attributed to subspecies generally have evolved as a result of geographical distribution or isolation.
Members of one subspecies differ morphologically or by different coding sequences of DNA from members of other subspecies of the species. Subspecies are defined in relation to species.
As knowledge of a particular group increases, its categorisation may need to be re-assessed.
Example of sub species classification
Giraffe
The giraffe (Giraffe camelopardalis) is an African even-toed ungulate mammal, the tallest living terrestrial animal and the largest ruminant. Its species name refers to its camel-like appearance and the patches of color on its fur. Its chief distinguishing characteristics are its extremely long neck and legs, its horn-like ossicones and its distinctive coat patterns. It stands 5–6 m (16–20 ft) tall and has an average weight of 1,600 kg (3,500 lb) for males and 830 kg (1,800 lb) for females. It is classified under the family Giraffidae, along with its closest extant relative, the okapi. The nine subspecies are distinguished by their coat patterns.
Giraffe subspecies are distinguished by their coat patterns. The reticulated and Masai giraffes represent two extremes of giraffe patch shapes. The former has neatly shaped patches, while the latter has jagged ones.[24] The width of the lines separating the patches also differ. The West African giraffe has thick lines, while the Nubian and reticulated giraffes have thin ones.[8]:321–22 The former also has a lighter pelage than other subspecies.[8]:322
A 2007 study on the genetics of six subspecies—the West African, Rothschild, reticulated, Masai, Angolan, and South African giraffe—suggests they may, in fact, be separate species. The study deduced from genetic drift in nuclear and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) that giraffes from these populations are reproductively isolated and rarely interbreed, though no natural obstacles block their mutual access.
The Nubian giraffe, G. c. camelopardalis,the nominate subspecies, is found in eastern South Sudan and south-western Ethiopia. Fewer than 250 are thought to remain in the wild, although this number is uncertain.
The reticulated giraffe, G. c. reticulata, also known as the Somali giraffe, is native to north-eastern Kenya, southern Ethiopia, and Somalia. An estimated no more than 5,000 remain in the wild,
The Angolan giraffe, G. c. angolensis, or the Namibian giraffe, is found in northern Namibia, south-western Zambia, Botswana, and western Zimbabwe.
The Kordofan giraffe, G. c. antiquorum, has a distribution which includes southern Chad, the Central African Republic, northern Cameroon, and north-eastern DR Congo. Populations in Cameroon were formerly included in G. c. peralta, but this was incorrect.
The Masai giraffe, G. c. tippelskirchi,[15] also known as the Kilimanjaro giraffe, can be found in central and southern Kenya and in Tanzania.
The Rothschild giraffe, G. c. rothschildi named for Walter Rothschild,[ is also called the Baringo or Ugandan giraffe. Its range includes parts of Uganda and Kenya.
The South African giraffe, G. c. giraffa, is found in northern South Africa, southern Botswana, southern Zimbabwe, and south-western Mozambique.
The Rhodesian giraffe, G. c. thornicrofti,[ named for Harry Scott Thornicroft,it is restricted to the Luangwa Valley in eastern Zambia. N
The West African giraffe, G. c. peralta,] also the Niger or Nigerian giraffe, is endemic to south-western Niger.
Chimpanzee, sometimes colloquially chimp, is the common name for the two extant hominid species of apes in the genus Pan. The Congo River forms the boundary between the native habitats of the two species:
Common chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes (West and Central Africa)
Bonobo, Pan paniscus (forests of the Democratic Republic of the Congo)
______________
The bonobo is a little shorter and thinner than the common chimpanzee, but has longer limbs. The bonobo has proportionately longer upper limbs and tends to walk upright more often than the common chimpanzee.Bonobos are claimed to be more neotenized than the common chimpanzees, taking into account such features as the proportionately long torso length of the bonobo. Anatomical differences between the common chimpanzee and the bonobo are slight, but sexual and social behaviours are markedly different. The common chimpanzee has an omnivorous diet, a troop hunting culture based on beta males led by an alpha male, and highly complex social relationships. The bonobo, on the other hand, has a mostly frugivorous diet and an egalitarian, nonviolent, matriarchal, sexually receptive behaviour.Bonobos are well known to have frequent sex and also to use sex to help prevent and resolve conflicts. Different groups of chimpanzees also have different cultural behaviour with preferences for types of tools. The common chimpanzee tends to display higher levels of aggression than the bonobo.The average sleep time of a chimpanzee in captivity is 9.7 hours per day
Gorillas comprise the eponymous genus Gorilla, the largest extant genus of primates by size. They are ground-dwelling, predominantly herbivorous apes that inhabit the forests of central Africa. The genus is divided into two species and either four or five subspecies. The DNA of gorillas is highly similar to that of a human, from 95–99% depending on what is counted, and they are the next closest living relatives to humans after the bonobo and common chimpanzee.
Until recently, gorillas were considered to be a single species, with three subspecies: the western lowland gorilla, the eastern lowland gorilla and the mountain gorilla.There is now agreement that there are two species with two subspecies each. More recently, a third subspecies has been claimed to exist in one of the species. The separate species and subspecies developed from a single type of gorilla during the Ice Age, when their forest habitats shrank and became isolated from each other.
Primatologists continue to explore the relationships between various gorilla populations. The species and subspecies listed here are the ones upon which most scientists agree
Genus Gorilla Western gorilla (G. gorilla) Western lowland gorilla (G. g. gorilla) Cross River gorilla (G. g. diehli) Eastern gorilla (G. beringei) Mountain gorilla (G. b. beringei) Eastern lowland gorilla (G. b. graueri)
The proposed third subspecies of Gorilla beringei, which has not yet received a trinomen, is the Bwindi population of the mountain gorilla, sometimes called the Bwindi gorilla.
Some variations that distinguish the classifications of gorilla include varying density, size, hair color, length, culture, and facial widths.
The orangutans are the two exclusively Asian species of extant great apes. Native to Indonesia and Malaysia, orangutans are currently found in only the rainforests of Borneo and Sumatra. Classified in the genus Pongo, orangutans were considered to be one species. However, since 1996, they have been divided into two species: the Bornean orangutan (P. pygmaeus) and the Sumatran orangutan (P. abelii). In addition, the Bornean species is divided into three subspecies.
The two orangutan species are the only extant members of the subfamily Ponginae.
The populations on the two islands were classified as subspecies until 1996,[9]:53 when they were elevated to full species status, and the three distinct populations on Borneo were elevated to subspecies.
The concept of “subspecies” is a tricky one. Even in a species where people can agree that there are subspecies, it is not necessarily the case that all, or even most, of the populations that represent that species are divisible into subspecies. They may arise here and there but they may also disappear quickly. What makes a subspecies is genetic isolation and/or enough morphological variation to “see” (measure) the difference, but the definition is slippery and variable. But really, the concept is so slippery that subspecies come and go in the literature. Far more subspecies have been defined than are currently recognized because naive biologists over-defined them in the late 19th cen and through much of the 20th century. The concept is useful when you have a real population that is isolated enough that conservation efforts have to consider it separately at risk from the rest of the population. Monarch butterflies that have different migratory routes, for example, and the various populations of African rhinos. Almost all reasonable subspecies that can be thought of as valid are currently geographically isolated patches of a once continuous population … chimps, for example (there are three subspecies). Most people who study human evolution these days think of Homo sapiens as a species represented at various times in the past by some populations that might be thought of as subspecies (like, for instance, Neanderthals) but the current representation of H. sap on this planet probably contains few if any groups that could be thought of as subspecies.
posted
News: New species appear to arise from sudden changes Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:20 pm (PST) . Posted by: "Robert Karl Stonjek" r_karl_s
New species appear to arise from sudden changes February 19th, 2013 in Biology / Evolution
(Phys.org)-Folmer Bokma, researcher at Umeå University, explains that living species have a limited ability to adapt to the environment. His results suggest that species do not change gradually, as the modern evolutionary theory assumes, but suddenly when a new species arises.
Evolutionary stasis is an alternative scientific interpretation to the widely accepted Neo-Darwinism. It means that most species show little evolutionary change through history, instead, evolution occurs more abruptly and it can result in one species becoming two different species. The theory originated among paleontologists who study fossils. They found that no intermediate forms of fossils exist. However, it is relatively difficult to determine the species of fossil organisms.
"I have developed algorithms to discover how evolution stasis occurs among contemporary, existing species' characteristics, in groups of species that do not leave fossils," says Folmer Bokma, researcher at the Department of Ecology and Environmental Science, who was a guest speaker at the 2013 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Boston on February 17th.
The method is based on that one first uses DNA to reconstruct the species' relationship to each other in the form of a family tree. Thereafter, one uses statistical techniques to reconstruct how the evolution of traits has been like, such as body size.
Folmer Bokma has analyzed various animal groups, such as the fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) and body size in birds and mammals. His results suggest that species do not change gradually, as Neo-Darwinism predicted, but suddenly when a new species arises. This means that when the animals' environment changes, the species do not respond to adapt and can become extinct, even though there are more than enough genetic variations at the individual level to make adaption possible. This is the paradox.
"I believe that the explanation for the paradox is that many features are designed primarily to each other within the species," says Folmer Bokma and further exemplifies what he means:
"Proteins in polar bears are not adapted to the temperature at the North Pole, but the body temperature is 37 degrees Celsius. Polar bears have the same body temperature as a camel in the desert, despite their differences in living environments. In order for body temperature to adjust, it requires many genetic changes simultaneously affecting all proteins in the right direction and it's very unlikely to happen. Therefore, species do not adapt their body temperature to their surroundings, but polar bears and camels have about the same body temperature as all other mammals. "
Evolution then becomes limited to the characteristics which are outside such complex of properties which are adapted to each other. Thus, polar bears get a thick white fur instead, which provides the isolation required for invariable high body temperature.
Folmer Bokma also discussed the extent to which this pattern is a general feature of complex systems that can be used in completely different contexts. A concrete example is the university that falls behind due to societal changes because they have created a complex regulatory framework that makes it impossible to change some routines without re-writing about half the regulations.
Provided by Umea University
"New species appear to arise from sudden changes." February 19th, 2013. http://phys. org/news/ 2013-02-species- sudden.html
'
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Interesting article. It suggest that humans can be characterized as different species.
Most people reading the article would see it as a racist piece but it has merit considering the fact that "racial" groups do show differences between them. Moreover, the craniometric record indicats that the skeletons of various racial groups appear suddenly, as dose racial groups. Thus we find tall Africans coming down from the Mountains of the Moon replacing the pygmies in Middle Africa, and classical mongoloids replaced pygmies in Asia. In China we find tall Asians (Chinese) type or Hua people coming down from the Mountains to replace the classical mongoloids who formed the second Shang empire: Shang-yin and the Kushite people. Finally we have the western Indo-Europeans migrating out of the Caucasus mountains to take control of europe and invade the Middle East.
posted
I believe that subspecies of man may result from extra-terrestrial genes impacting the junk dna of humans to cause various changes in phenotype that appear to make populations manifest physical features that make them different.
Yhis would explain why we don't find transitional homonins between the varied types of man.
I discuss this phenomena in my booklet on the possible role of melanin in the replacement of various hominins throughout history.
posted
so far nobody has persented and argument agiainsty the existence of subspecies or that humans cannot be divided into subspecies the way other animals are
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is one human species with no subspecies because any human can learn any human language, eat any human food, learn and play any music, and are above all are inter-fertile. Genuine sub-species are usually "niche-constrained" in terms of modes of communication, diet, mating habits, etc.
Another reason is that traits of the different populations merge into each other gradually and without any discontinuities--so it makes it difficult to demarcate one population cline from another.
For example, given the extremes of hair form as in the case of Africans and East Asian there are intermediate forms which change gradually from region to region.
This means that in the case of humans the divisions that must be made to establish subspecies would be necessarily arbitrary. Which defeats the whole idea of subspecies.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: [QB] There is one human species with no subspecies because any human can learn any human language, eat any human food, learn and play any music, and are above all are inter-fertile. Genuine sub-species are usually "niche-constrained" in terms of modes of communication, diet, mating habits, etc.
Cultural barriers have replaced the geographic. Look at any country and you will see interracial marriage rates are lower than a few percent, to fully absent. There has never been large scale miscegenation, since cultural barriers kept the races isolated enough for their traits to continue as they are still recognised.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Human = genus Homo of one living subspecies and numerous extinct subspecies.
Some human subspecies: - Homo habilis - Homo ergaster - Homo erectus - Homo antecessor - Homo heidelbergensis - Homo neanderthalensis - Homo sapiens - Homo floresiensis.
There are two Homo sapiens sub-species: - Homo sapiens idaltu(link), - Homo sapiens sapiens(link). The former is extinct. The latter is extant. It's us.
Human races are geographic taxons ascertained by non-universal societal criterium such that one person may be assigned to one race by one society and another race by some other society.
The society of politico-economic dominance's racial view generally becomes accepted by other societies.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Human = genus Homo of one living subspecies and numerous extinct subspecies.
Some human subspecies: - Homo habilis - Homo ergaster - Homo erectus - Homo antecessor - Homo heidelbergensis - Homo neanderthalensis - Homo sapiens - Homo floresiensis.
There are two Homo sapiens sub-species: - Homo sapiens idaltu(link), - Homo sapiens sapiens(link). The former is extinct. The latter is extant. It's us.
Human races are geographic taxons ascertained by non-universal societal criterium such that one person may be assigned to one race by one society and another race by some other society.
The society of politico-economic dominance's racial view generally becomes accepted by other societies.
How do we no that is not just an attempt at political correctness? In light of the fact that chimpanzee, gorilla, and organgutan supposedly have more than one subspecies and that just within the confines of a single continent wheras humans are much more spread out to all the continents, one would expect more than one subspecies?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
The definition of Homo sapiens sapiens as the only subspecies of Homo sapiens predates the "political correctness" movement.
How do we know you can present evidence for the case of Homo sapiens subspecies when all you've done is once again presented a proposition (in rhetorical question guise) without providing any supporting evidence yet thoughtlessly brush aside scientifically posited disconfirming material?
How do we know you even read what you yourself post? You posted the following. Do you understand them? Do you agree with them? Do you disagree with them?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
The differences between subspecies are usually less distinct than the differences between species, but more distinct than the differences between breeds or races (races can be assigned to different subspecies if taxonomically different).
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Far more subspecies have been defined than are currently recognized because naive biologists over-defined them in the late 19th and through much of the 20th century.
Almost all reasonable subspecies that can be thought of as valid are currently geographically isolated patches of a once continuous population ... Most people who study human evolution these days think of Homo sapiens as a species represented at various times in the past by some populations that might be thought of as subspecies (like, for instance, Neanderthals) but the current representation of H. sap on this planet probably contains few if any groups that could be thought of as subspecies.
-Dr. Greg Laden Phd
To recap - genus Homo has many species - Homo sapiens is one species of Homo - species Homo sapiens has two subspecies - Homo sapiens idaltus is the extinct Homo sapiens subspecies - Homo sapiens sapiens is us the one and only extant Homo sapiens subspecies - subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens has many geographic varieties/breeds/races - Hss geo-varieties both cluster and cline - traits attributed to one cluster can be found in other clusters - clines place large percentages of Hss outside of tight pigeon holed clusters.
You seem to operate on a principle that discounting a disconfirmation means the same thing as making a confirmation. It doesn't. You must come up with confirming evidence for "subspecies of Human" to validate that proposition.
No dancing now, time to put up or shut up, putting out won't work.
Now if you're not serious, just trolling for fish, I'm gone.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
How do we know you even read what you yourself post? You posted the following. Do you understand them? Do you agree with them? Do you disagree with them?
To be fair in my initial thread I put up information on the subspecies of animals similar to humans as well as a quote by a Dr. Greg Laden who refuted the notion of there being more than one human subspecies existing today.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
To recap
- subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens has many geographic varieties/breeds/races
you seem to be saying humans have many geographic varieties,breeds and races
quote:Some human subspecies: - Homo habilis - Homo ergaster - Homo erectus - Homo antecessor - Homo heidelbergensis - Homo neanderthalensis - Homo sapiens - Homo floresiensis.
None of those are subspecies according to some paleoanthropologists (e.g. Jelinek, Wolpoff). They are recognised as grades or stages within Homo sapiens. H. Erectus is Homo sapiens and appeared 2 million years ago. So the Human species is 2 million years old.
Jan Jelinek, 1978, "Homo erectus or Homo sapiens?" Recent Advances in. Primatology 3:419-429.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
@Faheem Correct they aren't subspecies. I made a typo. They are distinct at the species level under genus.
@Lioness You're dancing. You said my 1st reply was just PC. I asked you to back the pro side. I asked for a list of subspecies. You come back with a distraction. You're just passing time. I'm out.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yea, but according to Wolpoff et al and others they aren't species either. They are just grades within the species Homo sapiens.
It all depends how you define homo sapiens and when you believe they first appeared. This is an ongoing debate, since at least the 1960's.
Paleoanthropologists like Wolpoff and Jelinek believe Homo sapiens as a species first appeared with Homo erectus 2 million years ago in Africa. The "other" view is that Homo sapiens only appeared 200,000 - 100,000 years ago in Africa and so it doesn't lump H. Erectus as Homo sapiens species but as a seperate species.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
@Lioness You're dancing. You said my 1st reply was just PC. I asked you to back the pro side. I asked for a list of subspecies. You come back with a distraction. You're just passing time. I'm out.
I didn't say it was I raised a question about it. In the intitial post I backed the pro-side listeing animals and subspecies of them . But you disregarded it.
Then you said this:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
To recap
- subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens has many geographic varieties/breeds/races[/b]
I'm surprised you said this, it seems to make an argument for the existence of breeds and races in homo sapiens. Maybe you misspoke
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to the last survey in 1985 84% of American biologists agreed with the statement: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens". So only 16% of American biologists denied race.
Lieberman, Leonard; Hampton, Raymond E.; Littlefield, Alice; Hallead, Glen (1992). "Race in Biology and Anthropology: A Study of College Texts and Professors". Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29: 301–321
However this was over 25 years ago, so its unclear what the current results will show.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
You aren't explaining yourself very accurately.
A grade within a species is a subspecies.
A grade within a subspecies is a variety.
Genus - species - subspecies Homo - sapiens - idaltu * yes a consensus subspecies Homo - sapiens - sapiens * yes a consensus subspecies Homo - sapiens - erectus * not a consensus subspecies; a fringe idea Homo - erectus * a consensus species except to the fringe
Maybe a direct citation of Wolpoff et al will clarify what they say vs what you say they say. Got anything from the last 10 years? Nothing from 1978 is a recent advance anymore and a child has been conceived born passed puberty and even put a year or two in college since 1994.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: ^ Yea, but according to Wolpoff et al and others they aren't species either. They are just grades within the species Homo sapiens.
It all depends how you define homo sapiens and when you believe they first appeared. This is an ongoing debate, since at least the 1960's.
Paleoanthropologists like Wolpoff and Jelinek believe Homo sapiens as a species first appeared with Homo erectus 2 million years ago in Africa. The "other" view is that Homo sapiens only appeared 200,000 - 100,000 years ago in Africa and so it doesn't lump H. Erectus as Homo sapiens species but as a seperate species.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I'm not surprised that instead of listing Homo sapiens subspecies as requested you go on and try once again to distract from your failure.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
@Lioness You're dancing. You said my 1st reply was just PC. I asked you to back the pro side. I asked for a list of subspecies. You come back with a distraction. You're just passing time. I'm out.
I didn't say it was I raised a question about it. In the intitial post I backed the pro-side listeing animals and subspecies of them . But you disregarded it.
Then you said this:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
To recap
- subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens has many geographic varieties/breeds/races[/b]
I'm surprised you said this, it seems to make an argument for the existence of breeds and races in homo sapiens. Maybe you misspoke
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I'm not surprised that instead of listing Homo sapiens subspecies as requested you go on and try once again to distract from your failure.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
@Lioness You're dancing. You said my 1st reply was just PC. I asked you to back the pro side. I asked for a list of subspecies. You come back with a distraction. You're just passing time. I'm out.
I didn't say it was I raised a question about it. In the intitial post I backed the pro-side listeing animals and subspecies of them . But you disregarded it.
Then you said this:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
To recap
- subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens has many geographic varieties/breeds/races[/b]
I'm surprised you said this, it seems to make an argument for the existence of breeds and races in homo sapiens. Maybe you misspoke
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Cultural barriers have replaced the geographic. Look at any country and you will see interracial marriage rates are lower than a few percent, to fully absent. There has never been large scale miscegenation, since cultural barriers kept the races isolated enough for their traits to continue as they are still recognised.
But you have note refuted my point, which is that the cultural plasticity of humans plus their absolute inter-group-fertility proves that there is one single human species.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic