3 ms·

Err, isn't use of morphological classification to define species of animals super outdated? I was under the impression it was more useful to define which groups

Err, isn't use of morphological classification to define species of animals super outdated? I was under the impression it was more useful to define which groups of animals could produce viable offspring. In this definition, neanderthals would be a subspecies, not a distinct species in itself. This seems both more correct and more useful.

grondilu 9y ago
> Err, isn't use of morphological classification to define species of animals super outdated? It's still the best you have in most cases, notably in the fossil record. I'm no expert but I believe that the concept of species is becoming more and more problematic nowadays. There is a wikipedia article about it[1]. So, it's complicated. That being said, even if Neanderthal seems to have interbred with Sapiens, as far as I know, nobody seriously thinks this should revise its status as a separate species. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem