The Subspecies Concept in Zoology and Anthropology

A Brief Historical Review and Test of a Classification Scheme

Bibliographic Data

ID19003079
AuthorsO Y Keita (0000-0002-4061-3245, Howard University, corresponding author), Shomarka O Y Keita (Howard University, University of Maryland)
Year1993
Volume23
Issue3
Pages416-445
Publication date1993-03-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Black Studies (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0021-9347 • E-ISSN: 1552-4566
PublisherSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/002193479302300309
OpenAlexW2056030851
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited40

The and whether or not Holocene Homo sapiens is divisible into races continue to stimulate much discussion. Examination of the various positions leads to the conclusion that much of the debate is secondary to miscommunication, in that various writers actually have different concepts of race. Hence protagonists and antagonists alike may be supporting or rebutting a position that a given opposition does not really advocate. In a study of 20thcentury scholars and anthropology texts, Littlefield, Lieberman, and Reynolds (1982) find a decrease in the supporters of the race concept or perhaps any race concept; unfortunately, they do not address directly the issue of whether or not all of the race concepts presented in the texts are identical. The word race is emotive, and there are various ideas about what it means: a more closely interbreeding group of individuals, a historical biological lineage, a collection of populations in geographical proximity, or a group of individuals who resemble one another more than others in easily identified and striking external traits, and so on (Coon, 1962; Garn, 1965). Hence it might be helpful to use terminology and concepts from zoology to examine

Biology · Geography · Sociology · Subspecies · Zoology · Anthropology · Genetic diversity and population structure · Race, Genetics, and Society · Wildlife Ecology and Conservation

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub