3 ms·
According to Wikipedia[1], one way a species can be considered monotypic (not having multiple subspecies) is with the following criteria: > The variation amon
by dwaltrip 10y ago
According to Wikipedia[1], one way a species can be considered monotypic (not having multiple subspecies) is with the following criteria:
> The variation among individuals is noticeable and follows a pattern, but there are no clear dividing lines among separate groups: they fade imperceptibly into one another. Such clinal variation always indicates substantial gene flow among the apparently separate groups that make up the population(s). Populations that have a steady, substantial gene flow among them are likely to represent a monotypic species, even when a fair degree of genetic variation is obvious.
That sounds like humans to me, so I think we would be considered monotypic. Perhaps before globalization this would not be so.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies
- sevenless 10y agoI think I take issue with that whole line of logic. Red and yellow fade imperceptibly into one another via orange but they are still distinct colors. Whether there is a sharp dividing line or not this is still the case. It would not be logical to claim the distinctness of A and B depended on a third entity C existing. You shouldn't need to know anything about C to say whether A and B are or aren't distinct. Claiming that orange makes red and yellow one and the same is the continuum fallacy. It does not follow that an intermediate population must be evidence of substantial gene flow between populations, rather simply that contact exists. What does substantial mean anyway? Moreover most human ethnic groups probably do not have "substantial" gene flow between one another, else how did they arise in the first place? With no data to back the claim up I guess less than 5% of people are "racially mixed".