I’ve not described a species from a single specimen, but I have described several from a few individuals taken in a single collection.

I’d say that makes a lot more sense than from a single individual, at least from what I understand, because a single individual is expected to vary from the type specimen (if you look closely enough).

But I’m not a taxonomist nor a zoologist. 😉

At one time, there were formally described human subspecies, which no one seems to think today. There is an argument about whether subspecies are a good idea. One could describe a subspecies based on various counts or measurments being distributed in the required manner. Subspecies are generally geographically bounded entities within species, so one needs to know much more to properly describe a subspecies than to describe a species. One can legitimately describe a species based on a single individual. The anti argument is that subspecies described on variation of certain characters covers up the possible discordant variation of other characters.

Because you’re looking for discontinuity, it seems like you’re insisting on there being some mechanism such as disruptive selection, if races exist. There is no such disruptive selection, ergo no races. I was saying, maybe not clearly enough, that come to think of it this makes a bit of sense. Is this common – that taxonomists look for some form of disruptive selection before calling two or more subgroups of a species ‘races’?

Try thinking about what I’m saying so you can understand it, before replying next time.

-Dan

This makes as much sense as tits on a boar, dan. Let me use most of the same exact words and say it right, then you read that and go think about it.

Because you’d expect to see a clinal gradient in the case of genetic drift across the geographical range of a population (such as East-West across eurasia or whatever out of an African origin), the insistence on there having to be races, which by definition are defined as having some kind of a boundary, is bogus.

Greg,
Thinking about the clinal gradient “blurring” of so-called boundaries between populations some more… I still can’t get around that because in most cases you’d expect to see a clinal gradient in the case of genetic drifting of a species over a geographical axis (East-West, out of an African origin), that your insistence on there having to be a boundary is bogus. Unless you find some indication of disruptive selection (which of course there isn’t any, I think), in which case of course there you have your clear boundary.

I think that actually makes sense now that I’ve written it out and re-read it before clicking ‘Post.’ Is this common – that taxonomists look for some form of disruptive selection before calling two or more subgroups of a species ‘races’?

Thanks again for taking the time to give some feedback.
-Dan