Sapian why do we not have sub species?

Z

zooman

Well-Known Member
15+ year member
I have read that, apparentley it has been decided that there are 9 species of Giraffe. They are not sub species. They are seperate species

Was the giraffe being seperated into sub species just by external differances. I thought so.

It has me thinking. There are 4 known sub species of gorilla 1 yet to be named!

Why!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are for example mongolians and aborigionals not sub species or seperate species. Yet apparentey they are both the same species.

A not to complicated response would be great. Am l missing something obvious.

PS l do get the bit about differnt species when bred together usually produce infertile off spring. Yet sub species do-not. I dont know why........
 
I assume you are refering to humans?

This is something that can be discussed, but I am not sure if it should be something to be discussed. Because unfortunately in our world and society...there is so much discrimination amongst all the different peoples that to make sub-species may backtrack the progress that has been made towards human equality.
 
In reference to your giraffe comment, they must not be different species since they can breed fertile young, one of the female giraffes at Dudley Zoo is part Rothschild and part another she will most likely breed, but Dudley aren't letting her. :confused::confused: Very confusing
 
EvilKittie said:
In reference to your giraffe comment, they must not be different species since they can breed fertile young, one of the female giraffes at Dudley Zoo is part Rothschild and part another she will most likely breed, but Dudley aren't letting her. :confused::confused: Very confusing
Click to expand...

Its been hypothesized that there are at least 6 genetically distinct species amongst the 9 recognized giraffe subspecies.
 
okapikpr said:
I assume you are refering to humans?

This is something that can be discussed, but I am not sure if it should be something to be discussed. Because unfortunately in our world and society...there is so much discrimination amongst all the different peoples that to make sub-species may backtrack the progress that has been made towards human equality.
Click to expand...

Yes definatley refering to humans.

Very good point that l missed dam discrimination!!!

This came about as a thought and not meant to incite hatred.
As l do belive "we are all in this together"
 
can you tell us Okapikpr what seperates a species and a sub species. Using the giraffe as a example???
 
I'm not a geneticist, but in that the human genome has been mapped - and that this was a massive, worldwide project that spanned many years - if there were major genetic differences between people with backgrounds from different regions, it would have leaked out by now (assuming, with my tinfoil hat on, that there would be an attempted cover-up).

So my simple answer is that genetically, sub-species level differences aren't there, or we'd know about them.

As for the 'why not'. My best answer is that simply, there haven't been enough generations of isolation for it to happen. The only real long term isolation of populations that I can think of was the cutting of the land bridge across the Bering Strait, about 10,000 years ago. That sounds like a long time but is only about 500 human generations. Not necessarily enough time for evolutionary change to develop to the sub-specific level, especially if there's no great adaptive reason to do so. I would suggest that there in fact wasn't, in that case: indeed, the first Americans would have had it quite easy as new apex predators in a country with large herds of megafauna for them to hunt.

Other populations have been subject to genetic transfer (even the Australian aborigines had contact with Papuan and Indo-Malayan peoples) or haven't been isolated anywhere near long enough (as little as 25-40 generations in the case of the Maori).

Finally, we know that there was a population bottleneck somewhere around 100,000 years ago (I might have the date wrong) when H.sapiens was, to use modern parlance, critically endangered for a period of time. Any earlier genetic isolation would have been eradicated at that time.
 
Zooman, its a thought that has often come to my mind too.

With species and subspecies there is often a tough distinction and there have been many heated discussion on this topics. Bascially, the human mind has this inherent thought process in which everything must be organized and classified in some fashion. A species is a distinct type of living thing that has often been defined my a living thing that can produce fertile offspring amongst its kind.

With subspecies, this is a classification to give a distinct population of a species its own name because it may have some kind of geographical isolation (like some giraffe populations), a specific feature or behavior that may be different from the rest of its species (retic vs. baringo spots), or someone wanted name an animal or write a paper. On a scientific level, one may also assume that subspecies classification shows a rift in the different populations of a species that may one day lead to the event of a new species. A reason why many like to keep subspecies an important issue in captive breeding programs.
 
Okapikpr, it is really interesting. You have emntioned a couple of things that are very relevent l would also think.

Mans desire to name EVERYTHING!

When does a sub species become a species.

It would seem to not be as clear as l thought it would be. Sapian sub species ect.

Thinking, is it that Neaderthall was a species, Sapian is a species.

Dogs are a species with enormous variation and cross breeding is frequent. Are we just like them perhaps. As we dont call a St Bernard or a poodle sub species.

Does in breeding between sub species eventually create a new species?

This sort of conversation would be so much easier for me face to face!!!!
 
Dogs are a species with enormous variation and cross breeding is frequent. Are we just like them perhaps. As we dont call a St Bernard or a poodle sub species.

Does in breeding between sub species eventually create a new species?
Click to expand...

No, because they (subspecies) are the same species. However, some problems may arise out of breeding different subspecies. For example,
white-tailed deer in Michigan are much bigger than white-tailed deer in Florida. If a Florida white-tailed deer got pregnant by a Michigan deer, there may be difficulties with the birth because the calf may be much bigger than the Florida deer's repro tract can handle...possibly leading to the death of the female. (ie pug gives birth to a lab).

With the dogs, the different breeds could potentially be called subspecies but the naming may be different because all the breeds were created by the involvement of humans.
 
I think the example of dogs that you gave is a good way of thinking about human 'races'. Isn't it stated that there is more variation within a race of humans than there is between races. Also the Tasmanian aboriginals were also isolated for about 10 000 years as well.

Species and sub speciues is really tricky, especially when seperate sub species meet, then the distinction gets blurred. The sub species of tigers is interesting. Before humans mucked things up, the mainland subspecies were all one population, from the Caspian to Siberia. The island sub species (Sumatran, Javan and Balinese) were isolated however. The mainland population really couldn't be divided into subspecies as really the Caspuian and Siberian populations were just members at the extreme ranges of a continuous population. They just gradually merged into each other.

What makes a species as well?
An excellent example is one I read in New Scientist a few years ago. In Scotland there are two populations of gulls that are considered two seperate species. I can't for the life of me remember what ones they are so from now on I'll just refer to them as the Black Footed and the Black Headed gulls.

The two species are quite distinct in looks, behaviour and they don't intermingle or interbreed, genetically they are also quite distinct. Two species.

The black Headed gull has a range all through the northern Hemishere with distinct breeding populations at the various landfalls. The Irish population has some very minor diffeerences in plumage but the Eastern Irish population interbreed with the Western Scottish population and also the Western irish poopulation. This continues through Iceland, Greenland Eastern and Western canada, Alaska, Siberia and on through Northern Russia to Finland, Sweden and Norway.

With each step to the West there are small but distinct changes in plumage and behaviour but they are still Black Headed gulls. You can followe the changes along and they continue to internreed with popul;ations on either side. However by the time you get to Scandinavia dn back to Scotland the changes are such that they are now considered Black Footed gulls. A distinct species!!
 
I think I might be able to help on this one. While I am not by training a biologist I have actually read the paper concerning the giraffes and the subsequent follow-up. The best illustration on why the split occurred is the vast genetic difference between the subspecies particularly the northern group (Rothschild, Reticulated, Peralta) and the southern (Angolan, Southern, and Masai). The other giraffe "subspecies" haven't been genetically analized yet so that is why there is a discrepancy between 6 and 9 species. The best illustration here is the difference between the Masai and the Reticulated. In Kenya/Tanzania there is no geographic boundary separating the two, and yet they never mingle. In fact the genetic drift between the two suggests that the two types separated about 1.5 million years ago. This almost without question would qualify two different species. A similar finding has just occurred with the bushbuck it is now fully considered to be two species called the kewel and the imbabala.
Now where does this leave humans. Compared to the giraffe which split 1.5 mya, Homo sapiens sapiens (yes we do in fact have a subspecies there were others however) has only existed as we know ourselves for about 100,000 years. This is a substantial difference. The changes that make one race of people LOOK different occurs primarily on one or two genes. Out of the over 10,000 genes this is a minor difference. I once read that there is more genetic diversity between the northern and southern white rhinos than there is between Homo and Pan. I'm not sure how accurate this is, but it is something to ponder. Dog breeds are the same way, only one or two genes make all the different varieties WE have bred.
I will fully admit that this is a fascinating topic and if you like I can provide links to the giraffe and bushbuck studies.
 
Guys, this is all helping. Yes it is fascinating.
The origional question why are there not human subspecies. As Jay your Gull example would actually support my Aborigional/Mongolian theory of seperate species. Or is it only that they have evolved differentley and not genetically.

Jbnb 1.5 million to 100,000 is a huge differance. maybe this is enough of a explanation and there is no need to complicate.

So does a sub species have a genetic variable along with a appearence variable. That is more than just a few genes???

Yes thoose links would be great.

Quote
I once read that there is more genetic diversity between the northern and southern white rhinos than there is between Homo and Pan
Quote

WOW really interesting.
 
okapikpr said:
No, because they (subspecies) are the same species. However, some problems may arise out of breeding different subspecies. For example,
white-tailed deer in Michigan are much bigger than white-tailed deer in Florida. If a Florida white-tailed deer got pregnant by a Michigan deer, there may be difficulties with the birth because the calf may be much bigger than the Florida deer's repro tract can handle...possibly leading to the death of the female. (ie pug gives birth to a lab).

With the dogs, the different breeds could potentially be called subspecies but the naming may be different because all the breeds were created by the involvement of humans.
Click to expand...

Dam was liking the dog theory.
 
okapikpr said:
With the dogs, the different breeds could potentially be called subspecies but the naming may be different because all the breeds were created by the involvement of humans.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I would agree with this. Most dog breeds are barely 200 years old. Maybe 500 generations for the oldest breeds.
 
jbnbsn99 said:
I will fully admit that this is a fascinating topic and if you like I can provide links to the giraffe and bushbuck studies.
Click to expand...

Yes thanks!

:p

Hix
 
Bushbuck

PLoS ONE: Molecular Biogeography: Towards an Integrated Framework for Conserving Pan-African Biodiversity

This is the initial study from 2007. Two subsequent have followed this one, but I haven't found them online yet (one is yet to be published).

Giraffe

BioMed Central | Full text | Extensive population genetic structure in the giraffe

This is still an on going study with 3 populations (Thornicroft's, Nubian, and Antiquorum) still to be analyzed.

It seem we will have to start talking about Giraffa reticulata, Giraffa peralta, Giraffa tippleskirchi, Giraffa rothschildi etc.
 
Thanks! That 18 tippelskirchi looks interesting!

:p

Hix
 
All human groups coming from Africa, then moved to Europe and Asia,from Asia to Oceania later and, finally, from Asia to America, but our differences in skin colour, height, features, etc. (referred to as phenotype ) are not very deep, that 's "recent" to adapt to different climates we live, are not deep enough so that no human group can be considered a subspecies, the last known species of Homo gender that became extinct are Homo neardentalenis, if you see a skull, which is so different from us, but a European, African or Japanese skull from today are identical among themselves ...
 
KEEPER said:
if you see a skull, which is so different from us, but a European, African or Japanese skull from today are identical among themselves ...
Click to expand...

Interesting point, would have thought a mongolians skull was different from the netherlands.

What do you think makes a sub species? As l would have thought orangs all had similiar skulls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top