Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:34, 19 June 2015

Suggestion to move the Anthropology marker

Maybe the anthropology marker should be moved to Race, as the anthropological use of race is defined there and not in this entry. 87.123.164.154 21:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Why this page should be deleted

Someone needs to put this on Votes for Deletion. I have never done it before. Jokestress 03:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain what your problem is with the article and why you consider that it should be deleted? Guettarda 04:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This article constitutes a dictionary definition with examples, and Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Also, the quality of the page is low (spelling and usage errors abound). At a bare minimum, the human-related content should be removed and a referral to Race substituted. --DAD 04:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed the human stuff. I think a Vote for Deletion is likely to fail as the page does include some content. If you'd like to nominate the page for VfD, feel free. --DAD 04:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I've now cleaned up the article a bit. The dog/wolf example was incorrect; dogs belong to Canis familiaris while wolves belong to Canis lupus. (They may still interbreed and constitute a race, but do not belong to the same species as the article said.) Also, a look at Rosa quickly shows that different colors of roses do not fall into any simplistic pattern of species or subspecies. --DAD 05:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

subspecies

Breed is not the same as race, in fact breed standards count things that can not be breed. For example for a boxer to be a true boxer breed they are required to have a ducked tail. Races are general groupings of phenotypes even to the point of debating genetics. Obama is genetically a mix of white/black, however due to phenotype his race is Black African. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.46.6 (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

No, race is a biological fact, his race is mixed, identifying as a car doesnt make you a car. And breed is the same as race, in literally all of the European languages aside from English, the term for dog breed is simply "dog race" cf. Hunderasse, race de chien. Compare Dawkins definition, “A limited group of people descended from a common ancestor”, and see that's the case for any breed. The same way the species can be defined as a "limited group of a genus descended from a common ancestor," race can be defined as a "limited group of a species descended from a common ancestor," making it synonymous with breed or variation. Cake (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

the other article that this could be merged with is Subspecies --Rikurzhen 04:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, race is an archaism with limes, I suspect. I have always heard subspecies. Cat subspecies are usually called breeds, especially when domesticated. I agree with this merge. Jokestress 05:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. The terminology is basic with honeybees. The page should be expanded. Pollinator 05:14, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be confusion regarding these levels - which makes sense inasmuch as everything below species is rather confused. Race is a level below subspecies. "Race" is usually used for animals, as something between subspecies and variety. In plants "land race" is used for traditional cultivars.

Cats breeds are definitely not subspecies, and AFAIK, have never been described as such. Guettarda 05:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I found this 1897 reference to cat races: http://www.bigcats.org/swc/wildcattaxonomy.html Indeed, as early as 1897 Edward Hamilton, writing in the Annals of Scottish Natural History, warned "It would seem that the original Wild Cat, as found in the early historic times as well as in the Middle Ages, has for a long time been quite extinct in this country, its place being taken in the first instance by a mixed breed, in which the hereditary strain of the original wild race predominated. Later on, as the imported domestic race increased in numbers and localities, this was superseded by a still more modified form of the domestic cat, in which the foreign characteristics of the ancestral progenitors of the domestic race, viz. the African cat, were in the ascendant and prevail up to the present time."

I think part of the concern regarding this term is that it's archaic. I'd feel better seeing that it's in common use today. --DAD 05:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Host-Race Formation in the Common Cuckoo. Science, Vol 282, Issue 5388, 471-472 , 16 October 1998
Karen Marchetti, * Hiroshi Nakamura, H. Lisle Gibbs
The exploitation of a new host by a parasite may result in host-race formation or speciation. A brood parasitic bird, the common cuckoo, is divided into host races, each characterized by egg mimicry of different host species. Microsatellite DNA markers were used to examine cuckoo mating patterns and host usage in an area where a new host has been recently colonized. Female cuckoos show strong host preferences, but individual males mate with females that lay in the nests of different hosts. Female host specialization may lead to the evolution of sex-linked traits such as egg mimicry, even though gene flow through the male line prevents completion of the speciation process.

and

Transcriptionally Active MuDR, the Regulatory Element of the Mutator Transposable Element Family of Zea mays, Is Present in Some Accessions of the Mexican land race Zapalote chico. Genetics, Vol. 149, 329-346, May 1998
María de la Luz Gutiérrez-Nava, Christine A. Warren, Patricia Leóna, and Virginia Walbot
To date, mobile Mu transposons and their autonomous regulator MuDR have been found only in the two known Mutator lines of maize and their immediate descendants. To gain insight into the origin, organization, and regulation of Mutator elements, we surveyed exotic maize and related species for cross-hybridization to MuDR. Some accessions of the mexican land race Zapalote chico contain one to several copies of full-length, unmethylated, and transcriptionally active MuDR-like elements plus non-autonomous Mu elements. The sequenced 5.0-kb MuDR-Zc element is 94.6% identical to MuDR, with only 20 amino acid changes in the 93-kD predicted protein encoded by mudrA and ten amino acid changes in the 23-kD predicted protein of mudrB. The terminal inverted repeat (TIR) A of MuDR-Zc is identical to standard MuDR; TIRB is 11.2% divergent from TIRA. In Zapalote chico, mudrA transcripts are very rare, while mudrB transcripts are as abundant as in Mutator lines with a few copies of MuDR. Zapalote chico lines with MuDR-like elements can trans-activate reporter alleles in inactive Mutator backgrounds; they match the characteristic increased forward mutation frequency of standard Mutator lines, but only after outcrossing to another line. Zapalote chico accessions that lack MuDR-like elements and the single copy MuDR a1-mum2 line produce few mutations. New mutants recovered from Zapalote chico are somatically stable.

Is this adequate? It only took a few seconds to find each one. Guettarda 07:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Here race is used interchangeably with subspecies

• http://www.owling.com/Saw-whet_nh.htm

Subspecies: There is only one recognized race of Northern Saw-whet Owl on mainland North America and Mexico. There is another recognized race that is restricted to the Queen Charlotte Islands of British Columbia. These are the only two races of Northern Saw-whet Owl. The Saw-whet Owls are found nowhere else in the world but there is another species of Saw-whet Owl found in Central America (Unspotted Saw-whet Owl - Aegolius ridgwayi) that appear somewhat similar to the deep brown brooksi race of the Charlotte Islands.

Jokestress 07:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's a chameleon where trinomials seem to be contested, and:

• http://bornova.ege.edu.tr/~bgocmen/hc_lizards.html

Distribution: Known range extends from N Africa and Spain to W Asia; including Turkey and Cyprus with a vertical distribution to 700 m. It is stated that the Cyprus race of this species belongs to C. chamaeleon recticrista (Böhme & Wiedl, 1994; Göçmen et al., 1996a). In spite of Hillenius (1978) who considered it to be a synonym of C. chamaeleon chamaeleon, these authors maintain this trinomial nomenclature. Material from Turkey (Göçmen et al., 1996a) and Grecee (Böhme, 1989; Böhme & Wiedl, 1994), suggest that eastern Mediterrenean specimens attain larger dimensions than western ones (Portugal, Spain). Furthermore, there seem to be slight hemipenial differences between the two groups (Böhme & Wiedl, 1994). Thus, the population of Cyprus belongs to the eastern Mediterranean form, i.e., C. chamaeleon recticrista.

and a skink where subspecies is interchanged:

Distribution: Its range extends from N Africa, Anatolia, Cyprus Island to W and Middle Asia with a vertical distribution to 1800 m. In Cyprus, the nominate race, E. schneideri schneideri (Douidin, 1802), an endemic subspecies, lives.

Jokestress 07:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Color me convinced. Clearly not archaic. Whether race and subspecies are equivalent is still unclear, and probably fundamentally so. If you feel strongly, yank the merge. --DAD 21:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Like everything in taxonomy - what is a species, what is a family, what is a subspecies, etc., there are differing opinions as to what the boundaries are. I had a conversation with a systematist just a few days ago as to what constitutes a "subspecies"...there is no single answer. While "race" overlaps with subspecies in some usage, it also overlaps with variety in others. I think it's notable not so much in and of it self, but in association with the race article, which deals with only the use in humans. The idea that there is a valid biological race against which you can compare human races is useful information, especially for less informed readers. The article requires clean-up, not being changed into a redirect. Guettarda 21:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Dogs

Canis familiaris is usually considered a distinct species from Canis lupus, but it can be argued they are really subpecies of Canis canis, in that the two regularly interbreed, cannot be distinguished from each other at the anatomic level, and on the whole, display remarkably similar behaviors. Dogs have immense genetic diversity (in comparison Homo sapiens does not), which underlays the enormous diversity in size, shape, coloration and behavior. At the same time, we would never trust a wolf in the ways we trust dogs. I am arguing here that dogs are a distinct subspecies, one that is perhaps on its way to full speciation.

The word "race" is sometimes used with dogs: terriers, spaniels, and hounds, as I recall, with terriers being the most recently bred. Here the distinction is largely behavioral, tho' with hounds you can see that the superficial relationship to wolves is closer.

Under this we have breeds, where enormous variety within a given breed is again experienced, particularly in downsizing, as with the continuum of very large standard poodles down thru the toys to the teacups. Similarly, there are two kinds of corgi, distinguished only by their coats.

My point is that 'race' is a sometimes useful term, tho' another more neutral term might be used, but what that is I don't know.

From my point of view, 'race' should not be used with humans, because of the lack of genetic diversity. The way we apply 'breed' to dogs, tho', might work. --FourthAve 02:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

actually, dogs are already officially a subspecies of Canis lupus, C.l. familiaris.--FourthAve 02:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

critique

most biologists reject the concept of race (I mean, applied to dogs, bumblebees, etc). We need some acknowledgment of this. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Breed is different from race because it is obtained by artificial selection. Other than that, it is essentially the same. Of course no one rejects the existence of breeds. Biophys (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Trojan Horse

I submit that this page was created, and continues to exist, solely to promote the agenda of White Supremicists, and has no genuine scientific foundation. The taxonimic classification below Species is Subspecies.

The arguments in favor of keeping the page are, at best, specious. Breeds of dogs are not "races." In fact there is no clear delineation between dog breeds except in the minds of breeders in thrall to Crufts and the American and Canadian Kennel Clubs. There is no genetic marker separating St. Bernards from German Shepherds, no matter how aggressively commercial breeders seek to maintain breed (or "racial") purity. Mutts happen, because there is no barrier preventing any pooch from mating with any other pooch, and producing fertile offspring.

If someone wants to nominate for deletion, I'd support it! --TheEditrix2 12:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd support it too, though not for your reasons (especially since the first sentence refers to the wrong definition of race). I've taken enough Biology classes and read enough books for a decent broad knowledge of Biology, and I've never heard of race in a biological sense that wasn't synonymous with subspecies at most. This should just be redirect to subspecies or deleted. The article is five years old, it's ignored by the WikiProject Biology, and the rationale for keeping it is that it's used in recent papers that looks to me in a skim read like it was being used the same as subspecies. There's no sources in the article and the page is too short and doesn't explain what sets it apart from a subspecies. The only definition I found on the net so far that looked like it could work is this from Yahoo! Answers (obviously can't be used as a ref):

"The biological definition of race is: a population, or group of populations, within a species that has measurable, defining biological characteristics and an Fst of at least 0.25 relative to other populations of the species. Fst scores among humans average 0.17. So there are no biological races within H. sapiens. Also there is no way to look at a gene and determine "race". In other words, there are no genes or alleles that are Black, White, Asian or any of the other major "races" that society has made up."

I've looked around, and the only thing I haven't done yet is crack a textbook on it. And I still haven't found a consistent definition (I'm not counting the Answers! one because I haven't verified it from a secondary source) that didn't mean the same as subspecies. I'd say it should be converted to a redirect or deleted unless there's something everyone is missing. IfritZero (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TheEditrix2 this article is just a White Supremacist Trojan Horse designed to offer spurious support to their false central belief in the existence of biological races. There is no respected taxonomy today that refers to 'race'. DELETE Ackees (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course taxonomy does not refer to "race" because "race" is not a taxonomy unit. "Subspecies" is. That's the difference. Still, "race" appears in a large number of biological publications (see examples by User:Guettarda above), with the meaning described in this article (now sourced). Saying that, I would possibly vote to merge this article with Race. Biophys (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A proposal: A note should be added to the article Subspecies acknowledging that the word 'race' is sometimes used informally (but infrequently) to refer to a subspecies of animals, but that Homo sapiens sapiens (i.e. man), as classified in modern biology, is currently composed of only one subspecies. Another note should be added to the article Breed acknowledging that 'race' is also used sometimes as a synonym of it. After that, this article could be deleted. It adds nothing of substance to Subspecies, and only serves to muddy the waters in the delicate (and socially-contaminated) discussion of Race as applied to human beings. FilipeS (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Once again, you are missing the point that race is not subspecies. It's fine to add whatever you want to Subspecies and Breed. But if you do not like this article, you have two choices: (a) start discussion here about merging this article with Race (classification of humans) (I am not really opposed to merging, except that article about human races is terribly politicized and impossible to edit), or (b) mark this article for AfD discussion (then it should be kept). Biophys (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, I would strongly suggest not to do anything with races, as it will inflame unnecessary disputes.Biophys (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

dubious

Our articles on the two varieties of lime assign them to two different species. Mangoe (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by 24.44.181.147

Moved from the article.

From the article in the NY Review of Books: “Is There a Jewish Gene?” by Richard Lewontin, 12/6/2012. (Where it belongs is in the human race section, but that is so locked-up by anti-race ideologues, it is impossible to add anything that contradicts their iron fisted opinions.)

While the term “race” is not used explicitly in these titles (books mentioned) in large part because the term is so loaded, there is considerable discussion of the Jews as a race or, using a less charged word, as a “people.” (p.17)

Thus, there is a “fundamental continuity between race science and anthropological genetics” and a belief that “who we really are collectively and individually is given by and legible in biological data. (p19)

--Makecat 09:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Fungal Races and Plant Disease

I came to the Race (biology) page expecting a discussion of host specificity in plant pathogenic fungi. Wow!

If, in fact, "race" is a legitimate concept in the classification of pathogenic fungi, then the fungi article seems the most logical place to discuss it. I have a hard time believing that a quality or term specific to pathological fungus is in any way notable enough in itself to justify its own article, but if someone can produce a single reliable SECONDARY source establishing otherwise, I'll defer. But so far, all the article's defenders seem to generate are, "This one time...at band camp"-type anecdotes about how sure they are they once saw or read about the term somewhere. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Plant Pathogens and Races

I'd have to revise the topic to be fully confident of my understanding, but I think that in plant pathology, a "race" is a category below the level of a subspecies and is used to distinguish a form of the fungus that is capable of infecting one host plant species from a form that infects another host plant species. For example Fusarium madeupname subsp. madeupname race 1 infects watermelons, Fusarium madeupname subsp. madeupname race 2 infects cucumbers etc. I think it can also be used to distinguish between a form of the fungus causing mild symptoms and a form causing severe symptoms in the same host plant species.

I strongly suspect that there will be genetic variation underlying the differences in host specificity and virulence, but there is probably not enough genetic distance between two "races" to justify separating them into different subspecies. It might only be a few genes that allow the fungus to overcome the defenses of the watermelon plant, but not the cucumber, and in other respects the two "races" might look the same, smell the same, grow on the same nutrient agar at the same rate, have the same morphological features and spore size/shape/colour...

I think host specific types within species of plant-pathogenic bacteria are also described as "races". There may also be different "races" or types among pathogens that infect humans and other animals, although I don't know enough about medical/veterinary pathology to be sure.

Using the term "race" is not ideal because it has a lot of unpleasant connotations, however the concept of fungal races has been used extensively in Plant Pathology publications, so it requires explanation within the context of this subject. Even if the term "race" were to be replaced by "type" or "form", decades of plant pathology literature would still use this terminology, and plant pathology students would still need an accurate definition and thorough discussion to ensure their understanding of this important concept in host-pathogen interactions.

Cite some Reliable Sources, or it didn't happen. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Race and Racial discrimination

Balanced discussions of the uses of the word "race" and related topics such as racism are important. It is only by talking about racism, acknowledging racism when it occurs, understanding the causes of racism and educating people towards mutual tolerance, that the unpleasant outcomes of racism can be eliminated. However, I think those discussions would be better placed in articles about sociology/anthropology/scientific ethics/history of eugenics and so on. I have only skimmed over the article Race (human classification), but it appears pretty thorough on this stuff.

Future of the Race (Biology) page

The article is a bit confused and I doubt the accuracy of some of the statements.

Some of the material might be better placed in a discussion of the process of speciation or taxonomic classification.

The links under "See Also" seem like a useful start on drawing together different concepts related to speciation and the evolution of populations.

If the article could be geared toward a discussion of host specificity and the definition of "race" within the classification of plant pathogens it would be more useful and hopefully not offensive.

Or should I just create a new page called Race (Plant Pathology)?

Yours tired and confused,

Cressflower (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This page needs to be deleted

Not only is the content anemic & random at that, I count only 2 references, both editorials by an academic biologist who himself has a page. As such, his claims seem more notable for what they say about him than about race, but editors on his page can judge their merits. I'm guessing there's no additional content because there are no RS substantiating "race" as a biological - much less horticultural - concept, in which case the entire article needs to go. Just its existence when one googles the term "race" reflects badly on the Misplaced Pages project. If someone can show me how, I'll baby sit it through the process. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not done it before but this is how WP:SPEEDY, sometimes you have to request for comments first. --Inayity (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer some sort of appropriate redirect; in animal breeds, we run into some cases where the word and concept we use for "breed" in English is literally translated as "race" in other languages. I agree with problems, but for example, the Andalusian horse is often called a "PRE" or Pura Raza Española - literally "Pure Spanish Race"—if for no other reason, we need to somehow address this problem — I've had a couple editing wars over this issue. Just FWIW. Montanabw 05:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Social concept

The Race (human classification) page starts with "Race, as a social concept, is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics." Isn't non-human race then also a social concept? How about species? Am I silly to suggest this or are they silly to randomly call things "social concepts" when "Constructionism became prominent in the U.S. with Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann's 1966 book, The Social Construction of Reality. Berger and Luckmann argue that all knowledge, including the most basic, taken-for-granted common sense knowledge of everyday reality, is derived from and maintained by social interactions."

Should we reference Foucault or Andrew Pickering's Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics at this point? Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Also discussion here "Is "strain" a social concept and should we write this in the first sentence?" Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

But we have any number of sources that say race is a social concept. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are exceptionally stupid, even for a troll. Next question... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well if your only argument is childish and hypocritical name calling, you'd best not write anything at all. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The point is that strains and breeds are not "social concepts", they are the result of selective breeding in plants and animals; very different from the human concept of "race". Species even more so; no human intervention at all, but rather a function of biology. A 1966 source isn't going to work here, and though AndyTheGrump was, well, rather grumpy, you did ask if you were being "silly to suggest this," and the answer is yes, you are. Montanabw 05:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

What about the concept of race applied to naturally differentiated animals, which is referred to using that term all over the literature? That's what this page is about. Please do not insult me also. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Other languages use "race" interchangably with "breed." English does not. "Naturally differentiated" animals - i.e. changed without human intervention - if not subspecies, are landraces, which is a different sort of word. This article really needs to be merged and redirected. Bottom line: WP:FRINGE theories do not belong on wikipedia, and anything added needs to be cited to a reliable source. If you actually have sources (other than the above), present them with links. Otherwise, stop arguing, it wastes bandwidth. Montanabw 06:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

In fact it is you that has no sources and are just writing (false) assertions. "Breed" generally refers to animals intentionally differentiated by humans. "Landrace" refers to domesticated organisms that differ due to location. "Race" is a more general term applied to organisms differentiated without human intervention. There are many sources using the term race in this sense in the article. In fact Darwin used it on the cover of his book. And you fail to address the point of this section which is why human races are "social constructs" but animal ones aren't. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no interest in debating this sort of nonsense. Provide authoritative, reliable sources (with links to the peer-reviewed sources in which they are published) if you wish to be taken seriously. Montanabw 05:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"Let me begin with race. There is a widespread feeling that the word "race" indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races."

Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals." Mayr 2002. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"Mayr 2002" isn't a source. Montanabw 17:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

How's this? Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"Race" in that source is from a non-native English speaker, and in some languages, "race" and "breed" translate as the same word. Mayr has been noted as a closet racist and promoter of eugenics: , (same document) , so no, definitely not a source for here. Montanabw 19:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

""Race" in that source is from a non-native English speaker"

Garbage. Why aren't you asking to delete references to Boas?

"Mayr has been noted as a closet racist and promoter of eugenics"

He is a leading biologist and a reliable source. Sorry if you don't like him

Your arguments are garbage at this point and you are clearly biased towards an "anti-racist" agenda, truth be damned. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Such bluster. Must be Napoleon complex. danielkueh (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)