This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.108.215.59 (talk) at 03:10, 28 July 2005 (Two issues in the article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:10, 28 July 2005 by 66.108.215.59 (talk) (Two issues in the article)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)excellent article! -- Tarquin 15:40 14 May 2003 (UTC)
Indeed, it does look very interesting. Good work, Mr. Tannin. I haven't read the whole thing carefully, but I'll do so a bit later. -- Oliver P. 16:02 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
Thankyou, gentlemen! There are a lot of rough edges as yet, but we will knock them over as time goes by. (Both here and in species, which is the other half of the same topic.) Thanks also to Micheal Hardy and Jimfbleak for cleaning up my dreadful spelling! Tannin
Subspecies in humans?
This article states what criteria make groups separate species, but it doesn't really state what exactly is a subspecies. My specific question is whether the different human races (white, African, Asian, etc.) are subspecies? — Timwi 13:54, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- As the definition is written it would seem we could divide humanity into several subspecies. That's probably what a Martian scientist would do, though we may be reluctant to do so ourselves. 212.30.207.97 00:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
HUH?!!...
Not really disputed so much as just really unclear....
"In taxonomy, a subspecies is the taxon immediately subordinate to a species. Members of one subspecies differ morphologically but sometimes only genetically from members of other subspecies of the species."
"but sometimes only genetically"????
What's that supposed to mean? Is it meant to say "sometimes not genetically"???
--Blackcats 19:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If the specimens are different genetically, they also have to be different morphologically. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 02:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Untrue. Many nucleotide polymorphisms can have no phenotypic/morphological effect; e.g. see neutral mutations. --DAD 05:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Two issues in the article
"However, animals of the different subspecies of the same species might not interbreed even if geographical factor is removed." This statement seems to contradict the contents of the paragraph immediately preceding it. That paragraph seemed to indicate that a requirement for a group of individual organisms being clubbed together in the same subspecific category was that they would in fact interbreed, if only the obstacles (physical ones were cited as example) to doing so were removed.
Second, this article doesn't seem to give a "lower bound" on the definition: i.e. it explains a subspecies in terms of species (the coarser level of classification immediately above), but doesn't talk about what separates that taxonomic category from the immediately finer category that lies below it (subsubspecies?).
But I love wikipedia, and I love you guys. Keep up the fine work.