Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
|
What of anything you quoted actually supports your assertion that it needs a Linnean rank to be considered a subspecies? Because your quote sure as hell doesn't. "Subspecies" is not even in the Linnean classification system. It ends at species. Why would you expect a subspecies to have a Linnean name? They have a taxonomic rank (again, in my post on the previous page), but it doesn't follow your (pedantic) assertion that it must follow the same Linnean syntax -
Homo sapiens sapiens.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Levite
the subspecies that you are referencing are, as will has pointed out, phenotypes, and not genotypes. Please correct me if I am wrong, but if the subspecies in question were variations in genotype, would there not be more radical divergence between the subspecies than the minor alterations in skin tone, body fat distribution, hairiness, and so forth which characterize the various types you cite?
|
Subspecies classification in (in humans and otherwise) is not always phenotypic. Very few species have been entirely sequenced; in cases where the entire genotypic relationship cannot be established, the phenotypic differences can be used for subspecies classification by "sampling accuracy", described above (Post #46). As it notes, although some phenotypic overlap is "expected" due to the non-discrete nature of subspecies, it can still be classified as "different" with 100% (or 75%) certainty. It'd be lax to forgo classification entirely until an entire species' genome can be mapped, especially considering that it could take decades upon decades to do so. In lieu of (precise) genome taxonomy, phenotypic taxonomy offers great value - particularly in cases where infectious diseases show 'preference' for one subspecies over another, or pharmaceuticals which are effective in one subspecies but not another.