when we say race do we actually mean sub-species?

Question

as an example; tiger is the species - then you have sub-species such as the bengal tiger and the siberian tiger. different sub-species of tiger vary in size and colour depending on where they live. so when we talk about race in humans do we actually mean sub-species? because we vary in size and colour depending on where we live. im just wondering if sub-species would be a more appropriate term than race.
thanks

Answer 1

no

Homo sapiens are polymorphic, that is, we vary in our eye colour, hair colour, skin colour etc...

a race is said to show slight differences whereas a subspecies shows greater differences

sub-species also have a third latin name to their species...such as the carrion crow, C.corone corone

Answer 2

No. They are quite different. First of all the term race, as applied to humans has no evolutionary significance. It is a term that you should just forget as it is essentially irrelevant to human biology.

Sub-species is a rather nebulous concept. There should be a geographical separation which creates isolated populations which share a common gene pool different from the other sub-species and usually there are some obvious physical differences. Tigers fit easily into the sub-species concept as they exist as geographically dispersed 'islands'. Clearly once the island of Sumatra separated from Asia then the tigers there became separated from all other populations and differences began to accumulate.

Most species, however don't fall easily into sub-species even where there are known population sub-divisions. Humans are definitely part of this majority. They are not geographically dispersed with populations breeding independently from one another and probably never have been. Migration is one of the key traits of human evolution and that leads to a constant mixing of genes which reduces differences and stops populations from being truly isolated.

I recommend that you read 'The rise and fall of the 3rd chimpanzee' by Jared Diamond. It is an easy and interesting read which will tell you all about human populations and evolution.

Answer 3

Unlikely. Subspecies is not a fixed definition, and biologists are still working out what differences there actually are between subspecies of animals. Lots of so-called subspecies were defined in the 19th century and now turn out to have been no more than local colour variants (which might correspond to human races). On the other hand, some almost identical variants have turned out to be entirely different species. They're working on your answer, in other words. One thing to remember though: there is more genetic variation within and between old, established african tribes than between "races" with different colours. This is because genetic variation takes place over time and all the other non-african races have only been out of Africa for about 35,000 years - a fraction of human history.

Answer 4

No. Sub-species implies a certain level of genetic difference between the groups that simply isn't there in humans. It's sometimes said that there's more genetic difference within African populations than there is between Africans and other "races". Humans are pretty homogeneous, genetically speaking, and the differences between the "races" are quite literally only skin-deep.

Answer 5

Your argument is quite rational as also is that of some of the other answers given. However, can you imagine the outcry if anybody whoever they happen to be was called a SUB SPECIES. Sub in anyone's language means under or lower.

Answer 6

Possible, I'm no biology expert - are sub-species supposed to be intermateable? If so, then this term definitely seems to qualify from a biological point of view. However, someone is bound to complain about the use of "sub-" as in inferior, rather than it's correct use here, more similar to "sub-section".

Answer 7

All of the same species can mate and procreate because they have the same sex chromosomes

So if they have the same genome they are of the same species no matter what race

Answer 8

sub-species n race r one n the same tht is geographically isolated species which can interbreed but the term sub-species is generally used for animals n not for humans. if u wanna refer to humans its apprppriate to use race instead sub-species

Answer 9

It would be but can you ever imagine the human race accepting that they were just another group of animals...

Answer 10

Ethnic back ground is the probably more accurate. subspecies denotes too much genetic difference, which doesn't exist at least at this time in the human race.