Theory of Evolution.

[Lexicus]

Species is a somewhat arbitrary concept in any case.

 

[El_Machinae]

It might not be clear. No one minds if you don't really know about subspecies. It's speaking as if you do know that would be the problem if you don't. Which of your replies to the correction don't have a 'huffy' vibe?

 

[Agent327]

I wouldn't know, but what is a (sub)species is a matter of taxonomy primarily. Giraffes apparently have subspecies, but humans do not. (Which, I reckon, is a good thing, but has no bearing on racism.)

 

[uppi]

I wouldn't know, but what is a (sub)species is a matter of taxonomy primarily. Giraffes apparently have subspecies, but humans do not. (Which, I reckon, is a good thing, but has no bearing on racism.)

It is still a matter of debate whether homo sapiens has no subspecies or whether all its subspecies but one died out.

 

[Agent327]

Wouldn't that just leave the single species though?

 

[Flying Pig]

No: if you redrew the phylogenetic tree to make that so, it would say that the extinct subspecies were descendants of the surviving subspecies, which would not be true. The only alternative would be to ignore the extinct subspecies altogether, and biologists don't tend to do that.

 

[Agent327]

That wasn't quite what I meant. I'm just wondering what subspecies homo sapiens would have?

 

[Birdjaguar]

That wasn't quite what I meant. I'm just wondering what subspecies homo sapiens would have?

Teenagers.

 

[Flying Pig]

That wasn't quite what I meant. I'm just wondering what subspecies homo sapiens would have?

Modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens) aside, homo sapiens idaltu, and also sometimes homo sapiens neanderthalensis, depending on who you ask.

 

[Agent327]

Cool. Also quite extinct, but who's looking. As to homo sapiens sapiens - are we still waiting for that one to evolve? I'm aware taxonomist sometimes go over the top with naming (sapiens sapiens would be meaningless in Latin), but we've been around a mere couple of million years. As species go, that's not particularly long. Is there a different standard for subspecies, or is it just because we're discussing ourselves now?

As to what I actually meant: we, humans, do not have subspecies.

 

[Flying Pig]

Homo sapiens sapiens is us - we're a subspecies of a species which has had several branches, including us and between one and three other branches, depending on who you ask. The fact that all of our related subspecies are extinct doesn't matter, because once they've come into existence, you can't rename the only surviving subspecies as if it's not a subspecies at all without writing them out of existence in the process.

 

[Agent327]

Again, not quite what I meant. I'm not into the writing and rewriting of species and subspecies (we can leave that to the taxonomists, I presume).

 

[Lexicus]

Homo sapiens sapiens is us - we're a subspecies of a species which has had several branches, including us and between one and three other branches, depending on who you ask. The fact that all of our related subspecies are extinct doesn't matter, because once they've come into existence, you can't rename the only surviving subspecies as if it's not a subspecies at all without writing them out of existence in the process.

Well, yes and no. It's not simply a matter of certain branches of the phylogenetic tree being extinct- there is legitimate debate within the field about whether these branches constitute 'subspecies' or are distinct species.
The waters are muddied by the fact that species is, when you get down to it, somewhat arbitrary. I certainly don't know enough to weigh in on the debate, but I know enough to know there is a debate.