<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->We can talk about races in case of cabalines(horse,donkey,zebra-races of the same species),cammels-lamas,lion-tiger,dog-wolf,neanderthal-homo sapiens.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I thought neanderthals and homo sapiens were still regarded as separate species, even though there appear to be a few harbouring suspicions of interbreeding between the two. (Or perhaps they are subspecies?)
Correct me if I'm wrong but, for the rest, aren't they talking about 'varieties', rather? 'Variety' is definitely used in flora and fauna classification, from what I remember.
When it comes to horse 'races' they do not mean the same as when people use human 'races'. Human races were grouped by skin tone and other such simplistic schemes. And for a long time there were different racial categorisation schemes with some people putting Australian Aboriginals under the African heading, others saying that they were separate because of the occurrence of blonde hair; some dividing the Africans further into the Bushmen 'race' and a few other groups; and still others grouping Indians as Africans or otherwise as Australian Aboriginals. Makes one's head spin.
If it can be so arbitrary, Indians can be our own 'race'. Even so, that term makes no scientific sense.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Better than race ,we can talk about phenotype.
Mongoloid phenotype,subsaharian phenotype,caucazoid phenotype and so on.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->For me your definition does not hold simply because I know that even in my own family it does not hold: a few members will ruin the 'classification-scheme-according-to-phenotype' you have there. Because with a handful of individuals, where exceptional phenotypes cropped up, make it such that my family looks to straddle about 3 major Asian geographic regions (where 2 of these regions are classified as 'Mongoloid race'). And yet we're all historically Indian, all Tamil, all Hindu.
These things happen, though sporadically, in many parts of India.
The explanation is rather simple. It's the Indian gene pool. Very big. Very diverse.
This has had the side-effect of making it too hard for the 19th century anthropologists to categorise Indians: we defied their ready-and-labelled boxes. 'Race' - meaningless in the sciences - is an inadequate construct even in any informal sense.
Correct me if I'm wrong but, for the rest, aren't they talking about 'varieties', rather? 'Variety' is definitely used in flora and fauna classification, from what I remember.
When it comes to horse 'races' they do not mean the same as when people use human 'races'. Human races were grouped by skin tone and other such simplistic schemes. And for a long time there were different racial categorisation schemes with some people putting Australian Aboriginals under the African heading, others saying that they were separate because of the occurrence of blonde hair; some dividing the Africans further into the Bushmen 'race' and a few other groups; and still others grouping Indians as Africans or otherwise as Australian Aboriginals. Makes one's head spin.
If it can be so arbitrary, Indians can be our own 'race'. Even so, that term makes no scientific sense.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Better than race ,we can talk about phenotype.
Mongoloid phenotype,subsaharian phenotype,caucazoid phenotype and so on.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->For me your definition does not hold simply because I know that even in my own family it does not hold: a few members will ruin the 'classification-scheme-according-to-phenotype' you have there. Because with a handful of individuals, where exceptional phenotypes cropped up, make it such that my family looks to straddle about 3 major Asian geographic regions (where 2 of these regions are classified as 'Mongoloid race'). And yet we're all historically Indian, all Tamil, all Hindu.
These things happen, though sporadically, in many parts of India.
The explanation is rather simple. It's the Indian gene pool. Very big. Very diverse.
This has had the side-effect of making it too hard for the 19th century anthropologists to categorise Indians: we defied their ready-and-labelled boxes. 'Race' - meaningless in the sciences - is an inadequate construct even in any informal sense.