The Nature of Race

Karl Boetel and John Fuerst Version 1.0 2014

Introduction I. Biology -- Philosophical Clarifications I-A. Existing Views: Confusion Abounds I-B. Biological Conce ts in !eneral I-C. The Validit" of Biological Conce ts I-#. $Biological %inds& I-E. Natural Biological 'o ulations I-(. The Natural 'o ulation as a Taxono)ic *nit I-G. Evolutionary Classification, Natural Population, and Sub-specific ariation I-!. Biologically "eaningful #ace Concepts I-I. Conce ts Versus the Things +hich The" #escribe I-,. Biological Realit" I-$. Biologically "eaningful #ace %ifferences I--. Conce ts of Biological Race II. The E.olutionar" Race Conce t II-A. The /rdinar" Biological Race Conce t and the E.olutionar" Conce t of Race II-B. +hat E.olutionar" Biological Race #oes Not Re resent II-C. Races0 Clines0 and Clusters1 II-#. Clarification on the 2eaning of 3Arbitrar"3 and 3/b4ecti.e3 in Context to 'o ulation #elineations II-E. The 5e)antic /b4ection II-(. #ifferent Conce ts of Biological Race II-!. The Relationshi between the E.olutionar" Race Conce t and /ther Race Conce ts and a 5et Conce tion of E.olutionar" Races II-6. Clarification of the 5tate)ent 32ore Related b" #escent3 II-I. Esti&ating Co&posite %N' Si&ilarity II-(. "i)ed and *ndifferentiated Individuals II-$. Essential, Cluster, and +u,,y Sets and Bac- to Populations II--. 5ociological Clarifications III. The /ntolog" of Biological Race III-'. .ther %efenses of Biological #ace III-B. Biological #aces, Biological #eality, and Social Constructs III-C. /ilting against 0hat1 III-%. 2ea- Biological Essentialis& III-E. ' %efense of #acial Essentialis& 3in the E)planatory Sense4 III-+. 're /hic- #aces %efensible1 5es

IV. The Races of 2an I -'. ' very brief !istorical revie0 IV-B. 6u)an Biological Races and 5cientific Consensus IV-C. Racial Classifications and Biological Race Conce ts IV-#. 6u)an 6olocene Races IV-E. 66R as Biologicall" ob4ecti.e races IV-(. 66R and 2igration and 2iscegenation IV-!. 66R and 5ubs ecies IV-6. 6RR and cluster discordance I -I. !!# and /a)ono&y6 %oes the /#C7 represent a alid Evolutionary Classification Sche&e1 I -(. 8Significant9 #acial %ifferences I -$. Shades of de Gobineau I -7. #ace and Intelligence . Criti:ue of 'nti-biological #ace 'rgu&ents -'. 'nti-Biological #ace 'rgu&ents -B. Biological 'rgu&ents -B.;. Subspecies 'rgu&ents -B.<. Pan&i)ia argu&ents -B.=. Population Structure 'rgu&ents -C.;. Bio-statistical argu&ents6 independent variation -C.<. Bio-statistical 'rgu&ents6 Genetic %ifferentiation -%. Sociological 'rgu&ents -E.;. Super-Naturalistic 'rgu&ents -E.<. /he Nu&bers Ga&e -+. Se&antic 'rgu&ents -G. /rue #ace 'rgu&ents -G.;. #aces 0ere histroically thought of as subspecies 3as 0e no0 thin- of subspecies4 -G.<. #aces 0ere histroically thought of as sharply discontinuous populations -!. "oral 'rgu&ents Conclusion #eferences 'ppendi) ;. 2as %ar0in an Evolutionary Classifier1 !ull co&pares racists to creationists, and he is :uite correct to clai& that racists, li-e creationists, use 0hatever they can fro& science and ignore the rest. 3Gannett, <>>?4 /he tas- for race naturalists, then, is to develop a 8biologically infor&ed but nonessentialist concept of race.9 3Sesardic, <>;>, p. ;@A4 But 0hat are race naturalists &ade of, if not stra01 3!och&an, <>;=4

The Nature of Race Introduction It is fre:uently asserted6 firstly, that the 0ord 8race9 is &eaninglessB secondly, that races are not, biologically spea-ing, realB thirdly, that 0hile there do e)ist biological races in other ani&al species, there are none in oursB and finally, that any biological differences bet0een the hu&an races are &eaningless in the grand sche&e of things. It is infre:uently ac-no0ledged that the first through fourth state&ents cannot all be true at the sa&e ti&e6 if CraceC is &eaningless, it &a-es no sense to say that it is nonbiologicalB if it is non-biological, it cannot e)ist in nonhu&an ani&alsB and so on and so forth. Nevertheless, these four contradictory clai&s, individually fla0ed as they are, are thought by &any to constitute, in co&posite, an ironclad argu&ent against any atte&pt to characteri,e populations of !o&o sapiens as biological races. 3Presu&ably it is not yet considered 8scientifically racist9 to study biodiversity in other ani&al species, though 0e cannot be sure.4 /here is, of course, an ele&ent of truth to all four of the stated clai&sB for e)a&ple, the 0ord 8race9 indeed has no uni:ue definitionB anyone can choose to feel that 0hatever phylogenically based differences e)ist bet0een hu&an populations are not &eaningfulB there are race concepts 3often &ade of stra04 0hich are funda&entally non-biologicalB and there are biological race concepts 3fre:uently &ade of stra04 by 0hich there are no hu&an biological races. 'll of this is true, and rather trivial, but since state&ents ; through @ are so often ta-en to &ean so&ething true and nontrivial -- that there is no robust sense in 0hich there are hu&an biological races -- 0e feel co&pelled to provide a precise conceptual fra&e0or- for biological race. I. Biology -- Philosophical Clarifications I-A. Existing Views: Confusion Abounds 2e &ust start by carving out a conceptual space for biologically real race. #egarding the panoply of e)isting vie0s on race 3and its biological reality, if any4, 0e &ust confess to deep confusion. /he least be0ildering account &ay be philosopher Duaysa0n SpencerEs, 0hich 0e :uote si&ply to give a sense of the depths into 0hich 0e are getting 3Spencer, <>;<46
!istorically, 8biological racial realis&9 has been interpreted in either one of t0o 0ays. .ne is 8race is a natural -ind in biology,9 and the second is 8race is a real biological -ind.9 !o0ever, race theorists adopt at least four different vie0s about +irst, so&e race theorists F such as 'nthony 'ppiah 3;??A, @>4, #obin 'ndreasen 3<>>>, SAGGSAGH4, and Nao&i Iac- 3<>><, @4 F define a natural -ind as an obJectively real -ind. ' paradig& e)a&ple is 'ndreasenEs vie0. 'ccording to 'ndreasen 3<>>>, SAGG4, race &ust be a 8natural -ind9 in order to be biologically real. +urther&ore, natural -inds are supposed to be -inds that 8e)ist obJectivelyB9 and &ore specifically, -inds that e)ist 8independently of hu&an classifying

activities9 3'ndreasen <>>>, SAGA-SAGH4. Second, so&e race theorists F such as Edouard "achery 3<>>G, @@A4 and Glasgo0 3<>>?, K;4 F define a natural -ind as an inductively useful -ind in science. +or e)a&ple, "achery 3<>>G, @@G, @@A4 defines 8natural -inds9 as 8classes about 0hich nonaccidental, scientifically relevant inductive generali,ations can be for&ulated,9 and "achery and +aucher 3<>>G, ;<>?4 go on to re:uire that race &ust have 8inferential po0er9 in order to be biologically real. /hird, so&e race theorists define a natural -ind as a -ind that is a useful obJect of study in a natural science. +or e)a&ple, !aslanger 3<>>K, GK4 clai&s that biological racial realis& re:uires that 8races are natural -inds,9 and she goes on to define a natural -ind as a -ind 0hose constitutive properties are 8natural,9 0here 8natural properties of things areL those studied by the natural sciences9 3!aslanger <>>K, A>4. +ourth, so&e race theorists define a natural -ind using prag&atis&. Philip $itcher is the &ain proponent of this vie0. $itcher 3<>>H, <??, =>;4 reJects that there are any obJectively real -inds in nature. Instead a -ind is natural to the e)tent that it is constructed by lu&ping obJectively real particulars into a -ind M such that 3N;4 M is useful for so&e valuable proJect P in so&e scientific conte)t C, and 3N<4 M Es P-utility in C out0eighs its 8potential da&age,9 not Just in C, but in other conte)ts in 0hich M plays a role 3$itcher <>>H, =><4. +or e)a&ple, according to $itcher 3<>>H, =>A4, in order for race to be a natural -ind in biology, it 0ould not only have to prove itself useful for so&e i&portant biological proJect, but also, 0e &ust be able to sho0 that its use 0ould not 8revive unJust and da&aging social practices N.O

2e thin- you can appreciate our confusion. 's SpencerEs synopsis indicates, there is little agree&ent a&ong philosophers of science as to 0hat constitutes 8biological reality9 or constitutes Cnatural -indsC. If our philosophers cannot decide 0hat it &eans to be 8biologically real,9 nor deter&ine the nature of a 8natural -ind,9 0e cannot hope to do so, and therefore cannot even begin to try to defend the 8real biological reality9 or 8true natural -indness9 of race F so 0e 0ill not. Instead, 0e 0ill si&ply s-etch a biological conception of race, defend the validity and biological reality in so&e sense of this understanding, e)plain ho0 it applies to hu&an beings, and critici,e the usual argu&ents presented by opponents of biological conceptions of race. If our conception of biological race is not in accordance 0ith certain philosophersE 8natural9 or 8genuine9 or 8real9 -inds, nothing 0ill be lost, since our account of biological race 0ill at least represent a &eaningful biological one and, &ore i&portantly, 0ill be the only one that can &a-e sense of the &any past and present social and philosophical debates on the reality of race. I-B. Biological Conce ts in !eneral Since 0e &ean to s-etch a typical biological conception of race, 0e &ust start by outlining 0hat e)actly is a biological concept. +or us, it is a concept e&ployed in, and not peripheral to, the biological sciences. /his characteri,ation renders a 8biological concept9 synony&ous 0ith a biologistEs concept.

E)a&ples of biological concepts include predators, se), and de&e. Biologists, of course, use these concepts to organi,e their specific research progra&s. E)a&ples of nonbiological concepts include cri&inal, gender, and state of residence. "any concepts belong to &ore fields of science than Just biologyB for e)a&ple, &acro&olecule and statistical population. /his si&ply illustrates the unity of -no0ledge. Nevertheless, certain concepts, such as bio&e, organelle, and gene, can be considered pri&arily biological and not, say, physical. 'ccordingly, biologists and physicists, not to &ention sociologists and philosophers, focus on different, albeit overlapping, sets of concepts. In the sa&e 0ay, positron can be considered a physical conceptB organis&, biologicalB subculture, sociologicalB and natural -ind, philosophical. I-C. The Validit" of Biological Conce ts It is fre:uently proclai&ed, or at least insinuated, that race is not a valid biological concept. Brody and !unt 3<>;;4 re&ar-6
In their infor&ative article, the authors correctly assert that race is not a biologically valid concept and analy,e the econo&ic and political &otivations for the develop&ent of Bi%ilN.O

'nd Chollett 3<>;;4 asserts6

Since 8race9 is not a biologically valid concept as applied to hu&an populations, ethnicity is a &ore appropriate concept for e)a&ination of ethnicity-gender-class dialectics.

!o0ever, it is rarely e)plained 0hat it 0ould &ean for so&ething to be a 8valid biological concept,9 although the phrase has been used in other conte)ts than raceB for e)a&ple, 7ange 3<>;<4 argues that a 8biologically valid9 concept of autis& is needed to advance research on the disease. It appears as though a 8valid concept,9 in 0hatever field, &ust be 3a4 consistent 0ith logic, and 3b4 consistent 0ith the state of -no0ledge in that field. +or instance, s:uare circle is not a valid &athe&atical concept, on account of condition 3a4, 0hereas condition 3b4 e)cludes spontaneous generation as a valid biological concept. 2e see that concepts considered valid can, 0ith further develop&ents in the field, s0itch to being invalid, and vice versaB phlogiston &ay have been a valid che&ical concept in the early ;Kth century, but it had been invalidated by the ;?th. I-#. $Biological %inds& Current usage of the ter& 8biological -ind,9 li-e the philosophersE 8natural -ind,9 is so confusing that 0e are forced to invent and use our o0n definition. 2hen defining 8biological -ind,9 0e 0ant to do it in such a 0ay that very basic biological things F units of analysis or obJects of study in the biological sciences, such as organs, ecosystems, genetic populations, herbivores, and habitats F are all e:ually biological -inds. /o give our 8biological -ind9 &eat, 0e 0ill stipulate that it is a valid biological concept 0hich both plays a significant -no0ledge ordering role and is deeply entangled

in a research progra&B as such, a biological concept only beco&es a 8-ind9 0hen it has been 0ell vetted and beco&e foundational in the sense of being 0ell e&bedded in a research do&ain. In this sense, ne0ly introduced or little-investigated concepts 0ould not be considered 8-inds.9 E)a&ples of the latter category &ight include nanobacteria or superorganisms. Ne)t, since 8-ind9 in general &eans Pa group of individuals, instances, or things that share co&&on or si&ilar properties or characteristicsP, 0e should specify that our biological -inds are groups defined by so&e shared biological propertyB that is, the &e&bers are related by so&e function or characteristic of living organis&s. Organs are tissues that perfor& a vital functionB herbivores are plant eaters, and so on. /his is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for 8biological -indhood9 as defined here. .ur concept of a biological -ind is si&ilar to our notion of a valid biological concept, but our biological -inds refer only to groups of things, and not, e.g., processes. By our understanding, then, evolution and reproduction are both clearly valid biological concepts, but neither is a biological -ind. So far, our concept of a biological -ind is still rather fu,,yB to &a-e it &ore definite, 0e provide further e)a&ples of 0hat is not a biological -ind. 'gain, biological processes do not :ualifyB neither do galaxies, irrational numbers, and populations in general, for not being 8biological enough.9 /he situation 0ith regard to other pheno&ena is not so clear6 is biodome, for e)a&ple, a biological -ind1 2e could define a biological -ind to be a group of organis&s, but that 0ould include any social group and e)clude, for e)a&ple, genes. 2e could e)clude the social groups by clarifying that the shared biological property &ust be a pri&ary function or characteristic of living organis&s, or be 8biological enough.9 But that also 0ould be proble&atic, since social groups arise fro& ani&al social behavior, 0hich falls under the biological do&ain of ethologyB insofar as ani&al social behavior is a valid biological concept, socialization can represent a significant biological property. It see&s 0e are stuc- 0ith a fu,,y, perhaps even porous definition of 8biological -ind,9 si&ilar to $itcherPs prag&atic 8natural -inds9 F &inus the scientifically arbitrary 8potential da&age9 clause, regarding 0hich $itcher 3<>>H4 argues6
/his response 0ill not do. Given prag&atis& about -inds, it is necessary to point to particular purposes that dra0ing racial divisions in this 0ay 0ould serve, purposes that can the&selves be defended. If no such defensible purposes can be identified, then 0e should si&ply ac:uiesce in eli&inativis&. Indeed, the criticis& can surely be strengthened. Given the i&&ense har& that use of racial concepts has generated in the past, insisting on race as a legiti&ate biological category, even though that concept is lin-ed to no valuable biological proJect, can see& irresponsible and even perverse. "oreover, even if the concept of race plays a role in so&e lines of biological in:uiry, the values of those lines of in:uiry, and of pursuing the& through retention of the concept of hu&an race, 0ould have to be sufficiently great to out0eigh the potential da&age caused by deploying this concept in the other conte)ts in 0hich it plays so pro&inent a role, na&ely in our social discussions...

... /he challenge for so&eone 0ho intends to defend a biological approach to hu&an races is to develop a si&ilar account for the utility of pic-ing out those inbred lineages that descend fro& populations once geographically separated, in 0hich, as a result of the separation, there are differences in superficial phenotypic traits, characteristics 0hich, despite their superficiality, are salient for hu&an beings.... ... /here is a genuine issue about 0hether the category of race is 0orth retaining.

!ere $itcher calls into :uestion the 8natural -ind9-ness of biological race by blurring the distinction bet0een socially valuable and episte&ologically valuable. $itcher recogni,es, of course, that a concept 3li-e gene4 could be episte&ologically valuable but socially undesirable, e.g., to a 7ysen-oist, yet he ran-s both types of value along the sa&e di&ension. .ne could define 8natural -inds9 this 0ay6 as concepts that are valuable on average to scientists, philosophers, politicians, or the general population, for their various devices and enterprises. But that &a-es 8natural -inds9 into social constructs, by any reasonable definition of the latter. $itcher &ight argue that 8natural -inds9 are all social constructs F but then 0hy call the& 8natural -inds,9 rather than, say, 8valuable concepts91 $itcherEs notion of a 8natural -ind9 recalls 7e0ontinEs 8Science for the People,9 0here science, to be 8true9 science, &ust advance a socialist political agenda. No0, one &ay certainly choose to e&brace this general positionB in that case, fossil &ight not :ualify as a biological -ind to creationists, nor carnivore to vegetarians. $itcher is at least consistent, noting that, by his prag&atic approach based on social value, not Just 0ord usages but entire lines of research &ight need to be censored 3$itcher, <>>H46
I insisted above, the significance of scientific :uestions is conferred by us, and, in recognition of the proble&s associated 0ith continued usage of a concept, it &ight be reasonable to suggest that, 0hen all the conse:uences of using that notion are ta-en into account, 0e 0ould be better off to give up on particular lines of research. I anticipate obvious :uestions and 0orries. %oes this strong prag&atic test set standards for Justified scientific research that are i&possibly de&anding1 I believe not. 2e 0ould rightly 0orry about the continued deploy&ent of a concept in funda&ental physics, if thin-ing about nature in ter&s of that concept could lead, relatively directly, to the discovery of principles about the release of energy that 0ould &a-e &assively destructive bo&bs available to anyone.

$itcherEs approach F dee&ing that 8biological race9 is not 8biologically real9 in the conte)t of hu&an beings F is a prag&atic 0ay of obstructing any discussion of race he doesnPt li-e. .ne &ight al&ost applaud hi& for suggesting this approach, 0hich 0ould be far less repressive than, say, a ban on all population-genetic research. In any case, 0e can distinguish bet0een social value and episte&ic value 3Just as 0e can distinguish bet0een valuable for &e and valuable for you4. .nce this distinction is &ade, it beco&es clear that social value cannot cancel out episte&ic value, so 0e need only stipulate that a biological -ind is a concept that has episte&ic value for so&e progra& of

biological research. /hen, to the e)tent that the concept, or the progra& itself, 0or-s against so&e political &ove&ent, 0e can call it politically undesirable 0ith respect to that &ove&ent. In this 0ay, 0e can &a-e sense of the notion of a 8biological9 -ind in contrast to a 8nonbiological9 -ind. In $itcherEs ontology, on the other hand, all 8-inds9 are defined in ter&s of prag&atic value, 0hich has only one di&ensionB this one-di&ensional perspective &eans that a group of, say, ani&als, all of 0hich share so&e i&portant, scientifically valid, and essentially biological property, 0ould not :ualify as a 8biological -ind9 if it is dee&ed 3by 0ho&, unclear4 insufficiently valuable for so&e non-biological, nonepiste&ic, or even e)plicitly political progra&. /o give our concept of a biological -ind so&e philosophical legiti&acy, 0e &ay note that it closely rese&bles 0hat 0ould be $itcherEs prag&atic episte&icQscientific -ind, had he bothered to distinguish it fro& 0hat he considers to be &orally, politically, andQor socially undesirable thoughts. I-E. Natural Biological 'o ulations Since races by any definition are populations, 0e &ight forgo a discussion of biological -inds and si&ply concern ourselves 0ith biological populations. 32e should, ho0ever, note that Cbiological populationC is both a valid biological concept and a biological -ind, by our definitions above.4 "uch debate on the scientific validity of race revolves around the issue of 0hether the populations in :uestion are pri&arily biological or pri&arily nonbiological, so establishing a definition of a 8biologicalC population is essential. %o tall people and s&all people constitute 8biological populations,9 on the account of the respective group &e&bersP si&ilarity in a 0ell defined, highly heritable trait1 're larvae and i&agos biological populations1 2hat about se)ual di&orphs1 2e 0ill not atte&pt to ans0er these :uestions directly. Instead, 0e 0ill re-introduce t0o ter&s so to distinguish bet0een t0o types of populations that &ight be said to be biological6 natural biological populations and artificial biological populations. 2e 0ill base this distinction on that bet0een natural and artificial classifications used in ta)ono&y. Natural classifications have traditionally referred to ones 0hich spea- of overall relatedness. Since evolutionary theory ca&e to be accepted, CnaturalC classifications ca&e to be seen in ter&s of Cpropin:uity of descent, Fthe only -no0n cause of the si&ilarity of organic beingsC 3%ar0in, ;KG?, p. @;=f4. 's Parry et al. 3;??;4 note6
/he basic classifications that science ai&s at are those founded on the properties that prove to be &ost i&portant theoretically. Such a classification 0as traditionally called a natural classification. In contrast, a classification is a 3&ore or less4 artificial classification insofar as the properties on 0hich it is based are relatively thin in invariable relationships 0ith other properties... 2ith changes in the accepted theories of science co&e changes in 0hat is accepted as natural classification. 'fter the theory of evolution ca&e to be generally accepted in biology, the basic principles of classification of ani&als and plants 0as theoretically si&ple and obJective6 species and genera 0ere to be grouped together according to fa&ily relationship follo0ing supposed line

of descent fro& co&&on ancestors. !o0ever, since these relationships are not directly observable, in practice biological classification continue to be based on diverse criteria found e&pirically to be i&portant.

Because genealogical relatedness conditions overall relatedness, the post-%ar0inian understanding of natural classifications &odified, rather than usurped, the classical. !o0ever, overall si&ilarity isnPt solely conditioned by phylogenic relatednessB evolution involves &ore than Just branching. 'nd this has led to so&e ongoing disagree&ent as to 0hat precisely constitutes natural classifications. So&e 3cladists4, follo0ing 2illi !ennig feel that natural classifications should be &ade only on the basis of phylogeny. .thers 3evolutionaryQ%ar0inian ta)ono&ists4, follo0ing Ernst "ayr, note that these classifications should ta-e into account other evolutionary factors 3such as divergence4 and should ulti&ately be based on overall genotypic si&ilarity, or si&ilarity in, to adopt "ayrPs ter&inology Cgenetic progra&C. In our esti&ation, %ar0inPs o0n position 0as closer to the evolutionaryQ%ar0inian ta)ono&ist one than to the Cladistic one. .n this &atter, readers are referred to our 'ppendi) ;, C2as %ar0in an Evolutionary Classifier1C /he debate continues because &any desire a single syste& of natural classification, because al&ost all agree that this syste& should be based on CgeneticC relatedness, because there are t0o related but not identical senses of CgeneticC, genealogical and genotypic 3here &eant to refer to overall genetic &a-eup, not &erely specific genetic characters4, because genotypic relatedness is conditioned by &ore than &ere phylogenic branching, and because, at ti&es, as a result of the discordance bet0een genealogy and genotype, classifications based on the t0o senses of genetic diverge. 2e tend to agree 0ith "ayr and Boc- 3<>><4 and !Rrandl and Stuess 3<>;>4 that, of the t0o, the evolutionary vie0point &a-es &ore sense -- and 0e i&agine that the do&inant classification syste& of the future 0ill be one based on genotypic si&ilarity 3e.g., "ara-eby et al., 3<>;@44. +ro& this evolutionary-genotypic vie0point, both phylogenetic and adaptive genetic si&ilarity is ta-en into account. In line 0ith this school of thought, 0e 0ill define 3evolutionary4 natural populations as populations 0hose &e&bership is deli&ited in ter&s of genotypic si&ilarity. /hese populations are set in contrast to artificial ones, ones 0hich are delineated on the basis of superficial, often phenetic, rese&blance and 0hich donPt ta-e into account the totality of genetic infor&ative. I-(. The Natural 'o ulation as a Taxono)ic *nit The natural o ulation can be treated as a unit in a nu)ber of different biological research rogra)s0 including o ulation genetics0 taxono)"0 and conser.ation biolog"0 which ha.e different wa"s of thin7ing about the): In o ulation genetics0 the natural o ulation is treated as a unit of statistical anal"sis8 it is one t" e of biological o ulation that can be anal"9ed. Taxono)"0 which concerns itself with the ordering of organis)s b" relatedness0 deals with classes of natural o ulations0 and treats these classes as units of organi9ation.

To de.elo and elaborate on a conce t of race0 in art as a taxono)ic unit0 we )ust situate our discussion in a general hiloso h" of taxono)"0 a hiloso h" which itself is based on a theor" of what constitutes natural biological o ulations. Roughl" s ea7ing0 historicall" there ha.e been four taxono)ic schools: essentialis)0 heneticis) :or e) iricis);0 cladis)0 and e.olutionar" :or #arwinian; taxono)". All of these s"ste)s clai) to car.e out natural biological grou ings. The" differ in how the" conce tuali9e what constitutes a natural grou . Essentialis)0 in the Aristotelian sense0 describes a school which see7s to grou b" for)al natures :eidos and genos;8 heneticis) grou s b" henetic si)ilarit"8 cladis) grou s strictl" b" genealogical si)ilarit"8 and e.olutionar" taxono)" grou s b" genot" ic si)ilarit". Currentl"0 there is a consensus in biolog" :and the hiloso h" of biolog"; against the first two schools. Regarding essentialis)0 Aristotle<s for)al natures ha.e been discarded. :Though0 as discussed in section III-#0 to our )ind his genos and he kata to eidos physis :as )o.er; doesn<t loo7 too )uch different fro) the )odern da" geneotype and genetic nature8 that is0 what has been dis atched see)s to ha.e been )ore of a strawconce t.; Regarding heneticis)0 biological nature is now understood in ter)s of genetic0 not henetic0 relatedness8 henetic characters are seen0 in turn0 as a roduct of0 and )eans of inferring0 o.erall genetic relatedness. 's for the latter t0o schools, there is intractable and so&eti&es hostile debate. Both schools ta-e into account genealogical relatedness. +or the evolutionary school, grouping by genotypic affintiy, not phylogeny, is the goal. "ayr and 'shloc- 3;?A?4 e)pressed the evolutionary position thusly6
.nce 0e accept the basic principle of biological classification, that organis& are to be classified according to the infor&ation content of their genetic progra&, it is evident that NretrospectiveO &onophyly &ust be re:uired. 'rtificial ta)a, containing descendants of different ancestors, 0ould be unable to fill the de&and one places on scientific theory, o0ing to the heterogeneity of the included genetic progra&s. /he evolutionist believes that a classification consistent 0ith our reconstruction of phylogeny has a better chance of &eeting these obJectives than any other &ethod of classification. /a)a deli&ited in such a 0ay to coincide 0ith phylogenic groups 3lineages4 are apt not only to share the greatest nu&ber of Joint attributes, but at the sa&e ti&e to have an e)planatory basis for there e)istence.

/he evolutionary ta)ono&ist atte&pts to group by genotypic affinity. Since genetic affinity is conditioned by phylogenic affinity, retrospectively understood, evolutionary classifications are genealogical ones, to use %ar0inPs phrase, in arrangement. /hey are genealogical in that they are not, to use &odern ter&inology, polyphyletic. Cladists group by genealogical relatedness alone and are uninterested in overall genotypic relatedness. /he picture belo0 illustrates a situation in 0hich the disagree&ent bet0een the schools e&erges6

/he cladist, relying on genealogy alone, groups 'ves and Crocodillia into a cohort called 'rchosauria 0hich, in turn, is nested in an interclass called #eptilo&orpha. Birds are reptiles 3or reptilo&orphs4 since the genealogical branch containing both Crocodiles and other reptiles also includes birds. .n the other hand, the evolutionary ta)ono&ist, ta-ing into account relative rates of evolutionary change and overall genotypic si&ilarity, groups Crocodiles and other #eptiles in the class #eptilia 0hich is set distinct fro& the class 'ves. +ro& the evolutionary ta)ono&ic perspective, birds are not reptiles since they have evolved to be :uite genotypically distinct. Another wa" to ut this is that the cladist delineates grou s according to genealog" both retros ecti.el" and ros ecti.el" understood. Their grou s are )ono h"letic in both the bac7wards and forwards senses. Accordingl"0 :bac7wards; all o ulations contained in a .alid taxon )ust ha.e descended fro) the nearest co))on taxon at a higher le.el :i.e.0 crocodiles and other re tiles )ust both be re tilo)or hs; and :forward; all o ulations which descended fro) a .alid taxon )ust be included in it :i.e.0 re tilo)or hs )ust also include other re liles0 crocodiles0 and birds;. E.olutionar" taxono)ists0 on the other hand0 delineate grou s according to genealog" onl" in the retros ecti.e sense8 taxa are onl" retros ecti.el" )ono h"letic -- and so )a" be ara h"letic. 's such, 0hile a valid ta)on &ust not contain populations not descend fro& it, it need not include all those that did. 2hen deciding 0hich &e&bers a ta)on includes, evolutionary ta)ono&ists ta-e into account overall %N' si&ilarity, so their ta)a inde) both genealogy 3in the retrospective sense4 and non-genealogical genotypic si&ilarity.

. "ayr and Boc- 3<>><4 contrast cladis& 0ith evolutionary ta)ono&y6

/he study of phylogeny has been traditionally considered to be, so to spea-, a bac-0ard loo-ing endeavour, the search for and study of co&&on ancestors. /he starting point in such an analysis is a particular ta)on and the student of phylogeny atte&pts to infer the ancestors of this ta)on. If all the species of a tentatively deli&ited ta)on are the descendants of the nearest co&&on ancestor, the ta)on follo0ing !aec-el 3;KAA4 is called &onophyletic 3"ayr ;?A?, "ayr and 'shloc-, ;??; pp. <G=S<GG4. !ennig 3;?G>4 Nthe -ey founder of cladis&O introduced an entirely dierent concept. /he study of phylogeny 0as for hi& a for0ard 3to the future4 loo-ing processB its starting point 0as a ste& 3&other4 species ....Genealogical branching alone is not sufifcient for the construction of a sound classiTcation of living organis&s. %ar0in 3;KG?, p. @<>4 said rightly, UL but that the a&ount of difference in the several branches or groups, though allied in the sa&e degree in blood to their co&&on progenitor Nat branching pointsO, &ay differ greatly L and this is e)pressed by the for&s being ran-ed under different genera, fa&ilies, sections, or orders.E ' sound %ar0inian classiTcation, therefore, &ust be based on a balanced consideration of both genealogical branching 3cladogenesis4 and si&ilarity 3a&ount of phyletic evolutionary change V anagenesis4.

's for 0hich perspective 0e have adopted, 0e 0ill not -eep readers in suspense6 as they &ay have guessed, 0e have ta-en up the evolutionary ta)ono&ic perspective. /his has so&e bearing on our race concept and our defense of it, as 0ill be seen later on 3section III' and else0here4. I-!. E.olutionar" Classification0 Natural 'o ulations0 and 5ub-s ecific Variation /he ta)a in an evolutionary classification syste& represent natural biological populations, since these ta)a are not polyphyletic. 2hen it co&es to subspecific ta)a, the situation is &ore co&ple) than polyphyletic vs. non-polyphyletic, because subspecific lineages often blur into one another 3due to continual gene flo04 along ,ones of pri&ary and secondary intergradationsB that is, along regions of reduced divergence and of post-divergence hybridi,ation. 'n evolutionary classifierPs cladistic diagra& 0hich included e.g., biological subspecies 0ould loo- as sho0n belo0, 0ith 3a4 and 3b4 representing the subspecies of species 3;4 and the lines bet0een the& representing ,ones of intergradation. /his corresponds to an isolation-0ith-&igration 3I"4 &odel.

Based on figure G.@ in !affer, (. 3<>>H4. Biological Species and SpeciationF"ayrEs +irst Synthesis. .rnithology, Evolution, and Philosophy6 /he 7ife and Science of Ernst "ayr ;?>@S<>>G, ;K=-<@;. /he subspecific populations sho0n above are 8&ore or less9 phylogenically differentiated Just as they are 8&ore or less9 genotypically and &orphologically so. Because the difference is one of degree, these populations cannot be differentiated on the basis of uni:ue ancestry in the 0ay that 'ves and Crocodillia can 3since, 0hile not vice versa, all 'ves share uni:ue ancestors unshared by Crocodillia4. 2hen it co&es to subspecific populations, populations fre:uently have 8&i)ed ancestry9 due to gene flo0B the difference is 8&ore or less.9 'nother co&plication is that, at least for evolutionary classifications, subspecific natural populations can be hybrids, as is the case for Species ; above, 0here the t0o end lineages fuse together to for& a ne0, inter&ediate lineage. 'lthough each population represents a &ore or less distinct seg&ent of a lineage, populations ta-en together often do not for& a &onophyletic group even in the bac-0ards sense, as not all 8&ore or less9 distinct population lineages can be traced bac- to an i&&ediate co&&on one. Such is the nature of subspecific variation 3"ayr and 'shloc-, ;?A?B ;??;B .brien and "ayr, ;??;4. I-6. Biologicall" 2eaningful Race Conce ts It is fre:uently asserted that the concept of race is, biologically spea-ing, 8&eaningless.9 ' <>;= editorial in the prestigious Journal Nature, for e)a&ple, states6
NIOn light of increasing evidence that race is biologically &eaningless, research into genetic traits that underlie differences in intelligence bet0een races, or that predispose so&e races to act &ore aggressively than others, 0ill produce little.

2hat it &eans to be 8biologically &eaningless9 is never e)plained, presu&ably because it &eans nothing at all6 the state&ent is vacuous. 2e conceptuali,e the phrase 8biologically &eaningful concept of race9 in t0o senses, narro0 and broad, in accordance 0ith ho0 the ter& has been used. ' biologically &eaningful concept of race in the broad sense is a biologically valid concept of race. ' biologically &eaningful concept of race in the narro0 sense is a concept that describes natural biological populations. ' concept of race that denotes biological artificial populations can still be 8biologically &eaningful9 in the broad sense, as long as the concept is biologically valid 3e.g., Pigliucci and $aplanEs 3<>>=4 interpretation of an ecotype, belo04. .ur understanding of a biologically &eaningful concept of race in the narro0 sense 3natural biological population4 is based on usageB e.g., 2il-ins 3<>;;46
No0 (ohn !a0-s, 0ho I usually defer to in these &atters 3he is, after all, an echt anthropologist, 0hile I a& a parasitical philosopher4 has ta-en e)ception to this, and it is a co&plaint I have heard

fro& a nu&ber of syste&atists. 8'pe,9 8&on-ey9 and so on are not ter&s that have any biological &eaning. !ere is 0hy6 the follo0ing diagra& indicates the technical na&es given to pri&ates apart fro& 8&on-eys96 If you are referring to 8hu&ans9 then you can either &ean the species !o&o sapiens, or the genus !o&o 0ithout a&biguity. But any higher in the ta)ono&ic tree and you have to include the t0o Pan species 3the chi&ps4, and so on. NNote6 the ran-s here are purely conventional and have no biological &eaning in the&selves. /here could be an indefinite nu&ber of un-no0n branches bet0een any t0o ran- nodes, and probably are :uite a fe0.O But 8ape9 in ordinary use &eans !o&inoidea !o&ininae 3the 'frican Great 'pes4 &inus !o&o. 'nd 8&on-ey9 &eans all pri&ates, .ld and Ne0 2orld, &inus !o&inoidea. So, goes the argu&ent, 8ape9 and 8&on-ey9 &ean nothing useful. /hey are no &ore ter&s of biological relationship than 8-ind9 is a ran- in syste&atics li-e 8species,9 etc.

/he author understands 8biologically &eaningful populations9 in our narro0 sense6 the concepts discussed refer to ho&ologous populations. 2e also allo0 the &ore inclusive broad sense because other authors 3e.g., Pigliucci, <>;=B $aplan and Pigliucci, <>>=4 have argued that concepts referring to artificial biological populations F ones based on analogous trait rese&blance F are nevertheless 8biologically &eaningful9 in so&e sense F and 0ho are 0e to argue 0ith such prestigious philosophers of science1 I-I Conce ts Versus the Things +hich The" #escribe In the preceding discussion, the nature of Cbiological -indsC and the &eaning of Cbiological &eaningfulC and Cbiological validC 0ere discussed 0ith respect to biological concepts. 2e did not dra0 a distinction bet0een a concept and that 0hich it references. 2e are no0 &oving onto discussion of the &eaning of CrealC 30ith respect to the entities in a research progra&4. Since 0e Judge that the ter& CrealC connotes so&ething beyond the episte&ic status of concepts, 0e 0ill no0 dra0 that distinction6 concepts :ua concepts differ fro& referents. In our Judg&ent, referents cannot be apprehended 0ithout a concept, and a concept that references nothing is e&pty. 2e roughly agree 0ith $antPs dicta that Ca concept 0ithout a percept is e&pty and a percept 0ithout a concept is blind.C By this understanding, a concept, then, is li-e a container. 2hat it contains is only thin-able 0hen it is contained. /he container can be valid, &eaningful, deeply e&bedded and 0ell fitting in a research progra& 3shaped consistently 0ith the overall state of -no0ledge4, but if it is e&pty, then so&ething isnEt real F not the concept per se 3the ontological status of concepts is another &atter4, but rather the co&ple), thing, or obJect for&ed by the concept plus that 0hich it references. .ne &ight Just say that the concept is e&pty, or clarify, e.g., Cbiologically non-real in the sense that the concept is an e&pty class o0ing to the none)istence of the obJects of reference.C It see&s to us that people do refer to concepts plus their referents as co&ple)es, obJects, or things that can be non-real, so 0e 0ill allo0 that these things can be CrealC or Cnonreal.C /hing is a good 0ay to describe the& since a thing 3as far as 0e can tell4 is not understood as a thing F that is, it is not differentiated fro& the &anifold of e)perience in absence of a concept F and since people typically donPt refer to concepts alone as things.

I-,. Biological Realit" 's discussed above, for a biological thing to be real it &ust point to a concept 0hich is not vacuous. Since biology 3unli-e, e.g., &athe&atics4 is a natural science, and nature is located in the cos&os, the referent &ust be there too. "oreover, the concept &ust at least be biologically &eaningful in the broad sense, since 0e are discussing biological things. /hat 0hich is 8biologically real9 does not need to be a biological -ind. +or e)a&ple, processes such as &etabolis& and evolution, 0hich are said to not be biological -inds, are nevertheless biologically real. "oreover, biological reality does not re:uire deep, -ind-li-e e&bedding in a research progra&. CBiologically realC things include breeding populations; evolution; hydra, the ani&al &ar-ed by radial sy&&etryB and ecosystems. CBiologically non-realC things include humors; Hydra, the &any-headed &onster; spontaneous generationsB and 3in our opinion4 the Yeti. .f the latter, the first three are 8non-real9 because they involve biologically invalid conceptsB the fourth is 8non-real9 because it involves an e&pty, albeit biologically valid, concept6 the e)istence of the 5eti, understood to &ean e)istent archaic hu&ans, has not been ruled out definitively, so 0e cannot consider the idea to be biologically invalid 3i.e., inconsistent 0ith the state of -no0ledge in the field4. /hus 0e dra0 a distinction bet0een biologically valid and &eaningful, on the one hand, and biologically real, on the other. I-$. Biologically "eaningful #ace %ifferences /here is one other sense in 0hich 8biological &eaningfulness9 is used in a racial conte)t6 the sense intended by 7e0ontin 3;?H<4 0hen he clai&ed that race 0as of 8virtually no genetic... significance.9 'ccording to this position, a biologically &eaningful concept of races refers to populations, called 8races,9 0hose biological differences are, in so&e sense, i&portant enough. 2e find this to be an absurd understanding of the concept of a Cbiologically &eaningful conceptCB it runs into the sa&e proble&s as $itcherPs prag&atic 8natural -inds.9 /his understanding allo0s for the episte&ic &eaningfulness of a concept 0ith respect to biology to be defined by the significance or even desirableness of the concept fro& an e)tra-scientific standpoint. #ichard 7e0ontin very li-ely has no proble& at all 0ith this sort of 8peopleEs episte&ology,9 so long as the e)tra-scientific standpoint is suitably progressive, but it precludes any understanding of 0hat it &eans to be Cbiologically &eaningfulC 0here C&eaningfulC is &eaningfully :ualified by CbiologyCW 32e refer the reader to our closing re&ar-s in section I-%.4 Generally, 0hen authors clai& that Crace is biologically &eaningless,C in the sense above, they are i&plying that hu&an biological races are not biologically different enough to

&a-e their recognition as distinct groups 0orth0hile 3to so&eone4. ' distinction is i&plied, then blurred, bet0een the e)istence of biological races and the e)istence of sufficiently i&portant differences bet0een those biological races. /o avoid 0hat 0e consider to be an absurdity, 0e 0ill refer to this sense of Cbiological &eaningful racesC as 8biologically i&portant racial differences,9 0hich clarifies the logical 3as opposed to rhetorical4 intent of the state&ent. /hus, &eaningful biological races, in either the narro0 or broad sense, &ay or &ay not display Cbiologically i&portant racial differences9B that is an e&pirical &atter, given an operational definition of 8sufficiently i&portant9 differences 3e.g., effect si,e guidelines used in the social sciences, such as CohenEs d X >.G4. #eaders are referred to the discussion of !ardi&on 3<>;=4 for further discussion of the issueB particularly, a &ore detailed e)position of the logical and prag&atic reasons for dra0ing and &aintaining the distinction bet0een the e)istence of biological races and the e)istence of 8sufficiently i&portant9 differences bet0een the&. I--. Conce ts of Biological Race Ne)t, 0e &ust clarify 0hat it 0ould &ean for a biological concept to be a biological race concept. Such a biological concept need not necessarily be called 8race,9 nor does the ter& 8race9 need to al0ays refer to the biological concept, but any biological race concept &ust have a reasonable clai& to the ter&. .bviously, there is a subJective ele&ent involved here. Nevertheless, e)a&ples of biological concepts 0hich :ualify 3geographic race, etc. -- generally populations defined in ter&s of ancestry4 and donEt :ualify 3se), life for&, etc.4 co&e readily to &ind. Biologists and others 0ho discuss race in relation to biology have fre:uently referred to the for&er, but not the latter, as 8race.9 .f course, one could call any biological concept Crace,C and no ter& truly belongs to a concept, but so&e concepts and ter&s have a history of co&&on or related usage such that using the particular ter& to describe the particular concept doesnPt see& e:uivocal or sophistical. II. The E.olutionar" Race Conce t II-A. Biological Conce ts of Race and the /rdinar" Biological Race Conce t !aving carved out a conceptual space for biologically real races, 0e 0ill outline and develop a biological concept 0hich has a reasonable clai& to the ter& 8race.9 7et us revie0 so&e fre:uently e&ployed race concepts6
;. #aces as genetic populations %ob,hans-y 3;?@@46 "endelian populations 3i.e., reproductive co&&unities of se)ual and crossfertili,ing individuals 0hich share in a co&&on gene pool4 that differ in gene fre:uencies Boyd 3;?G>46 "endelian populations 0hich differ in fre:uency of one or &ore genes

Garn 3;?H;46 8' population, a population of &en, 0o&en and children, of father, &others, and grandparents... "e&bers of such a breeding population shared a co&&on history and a co&&on locate. /hey have been e)posed to co&&on dangers, and they are the product of a co&&on environ&ent. +or this reasons, and especially 0ith advancing ti&e, &e&bers of a race have a co&&on genetic heritage.9 !ulse 3;?A<46 8#aces are breeding populations 0hich can be readily distinguished fro& one another on genetic grounds alone. /hey are not types, as are a fe0 of the so-called races 0ithin the European population, such as Nordics and 'lpines. It is the breeding population into 0hich one 0as born 0hich deter&ines oneEs race, not oneEs personal characteristics.9 ogel 3;??H46 ' large population of individuals that have a significant fraction of their genes in co&&on and can be distinguished fro& other races by their co&&on gene pool Cro0 3<>><46 Groups that split and beca&e separated, typically by a geographical barriers, and gradually diverged genetically "olnar 3<>><46 Geographically and culturally deter&ined collection of individuals 0ho share a co&&on gene pool 7eori 3<>>G46 Populations that share by descent a set of genetic variants in co&&on that are collectively rare in everyone else <. #aces as genetic populations that differ noticeably in genetically conditioned traits !ooton 3;?<A46 Great divisions of &an-ind 0hich vary as a group in &orphological and &etrical features derived fro& co&&on descent Pearson 3<>><46 CN'On inbreeding descent groupC or Ca large e)tended fa&ily that inbreeds to a sufficient e)tent that its &e&bers share distinctive identifying biological characteristicsC Sarich and "iele 3<>><46 #easonably discrete groups delineated based on phylogenically related characteristics =. #aces as geographically circu&scribed genetic populations that differ noticeably in genetically conditioned traits "ayr 3;?A=46 C' race that is not for&ally designated as a subspecies is not recogni,ed in the ta)ono&ic hierarchy. !o0ever, the ter&s subspecies and geographic race are fre:uently used interchangeably by ta)ono&ists 0or-ing 0ith &a&&als, birds, and insects. .ther ta)ono&ists apply the 0ord race to local populations 0ithin subspeciesC *NESC. 3;?AG46 Geographic races can be characteri,ed by all -inds of &orphological or physiological or ontological inherited properties, that is to say 0ith si&ilar gene pools, inhabiting a certain geographic area. In so&e cases, for e)a&ple, in ani&als living on a very s&all island, on a single &ountain, in a single la-e, etc., the race can consist of one population only Brues 3;?H<46 ' division of a species 0hich differs fro& other divisions in the fre:uency of certain genetically conditioned traits Brues 3;??<46 #ace is the fact that geographically separated populations differ in their gene fre:uencies and range of phenotype variation, 0hich therefore &ay be used to esti&ate the probability that an individualEs area of ancestry is &ore probably one place than another place 'llaby 3<>;>46 'n interbreeding group of individuals, all of 0ho& are genetically distinct fro& the &e&bers of other such groups of the sa&e species. *sually these groups are geographically isolated fro& one another, so there are barriers to gene flo0. E)a&ples include island races of birds and &a&&als, such as the S-o&er vole and the St. $ilda 0ren. @. #aces as for&ally recogni,ed 3on account of sufficient differences4 geographically circu&scribed genetic populations that differ noticeably in genetically conditioned traits Cavalli-Sfor,a and 2alter Bod&er 3;?HA46 8N#Oaces could be called sub-species if 0e adopted for &an a criterion fro& syste&atic ,oology. /he criterion is that t0o or &ore groups beco&e subspecies 0hen HG percent or &ore of all individuals constituting the groups can be une:uivocally classified as belonging to a particular group9 "ayr 3<>><46 ' geographically defined aggregate of local populations 0hich differ ta)ono&ically fro& other subdivisions of the species Groves 3<>>@46 Populations, geographic seg&ents of a species, that differ fro& each other on average, not absolutely

Coyne 3<>;<46 #aces of ani&als 3also called 8subspecies9 or 8ecotypes94 are &orphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry 3i.e., are geographically separated4 G. #aces as te&poral subspecies $urten 3;?AK46 Subspecies are for&ally recogni,ed subdivisions of species, representing te&poral andQor local populations that are &ore or less clearly distinguishable &orphologically fro& other populations of the sa&e species "ayr and 'shloc- 3;??;46 Slightly different populations separated in ti&e A. #aces as genetic population that differs in genetically conditioned traits due to ecological adaptations Gregor et al. 3;?=A46 ' population distinguished by &orphological and physiological characters, &ost fre:uently of a :uantitative natureB interfertile 0ith other ecotypes of the ecospecies, but prevented fro& freely e)changing genes by ecological barriers $ing and Stansfield 3;??>46 #ace 30ithin a species4 genetically adapted to a certain environ&ent. 8' phenotypically andQor geographically distinctive subspecific group, co&posed of individuals inhabiting a defined geographical andQor ecological region, and possessing characteristic phenotypic and gene fre:uencies that distinguish it fro& other such groups. /he nu&ber of racial groups that one 0ishes to recogni,e 0ithin a species is usually arbitrary but suitable for the purposes under investigation9 "ayr 3;?@H46 8'll geographical races are also ecological races, and all ecological races are also geographical races9

Perusing these nu&erous definitions, 0e notice t0o things. +irst, concepts of race have been and still are fre:uently used in the biological sciences. Second, &any of these concepts share a co&&on conceptual core, 0hich &ight be called the ordinary biological race concept, according to 0hich races are subspecific biological populations deli&ited in ter&s of overall relatedness in descent. /his ordinary biological race concept parallels %e Dueiro,Ps 3;???4 8general lineage concept9 of species, by 0hich species are conceptuali,ed as seg&ents of population-level lineages. %e Dueiro, 3;???4 recogni,es a continuu& of levels of lineages e)tending far belo0 the level of species6
/he population level is really a continuu& of levels. 7ineages at lo0er levels in this continuu& 3e.g., de&es or de&e lineages4 often separate and re-unite over relatively brief ti&e intervals. /o0ard the other end of the continuu&, lineage separation is &ore enduring and can even be per&anent.

!is general lineage concept involves both super- and subspecific natural biological populations. /he ordinary biological race concept describes only the latter and includes concepts developed in line 0ith the cladistic and evolutionary ta)ono&ic schools discussed above. .ne can vie0 evolutionary races as populations and populations as individuals, in the philosophical sense of C0holesC or CcollectivesC, or one can vie0 the& as sets of individuals, since 0holes can be deco&posed into parts. +ro& the population perspective, races, as sets of natural biological populations, are divisions of a species 0hich differ fro& other races of the sa&e set genotypically on account of their lineagePs uni:ue evolutionary history and phylogenyB they are &ore or less non-overlapping regions of genotypic space. It follo0s fro& the above definition that6 3a4 Biological races are located in a specific space and ti&eB therefore, the races of a given species at /i&e ; need not identical to the races at /i&e <. 3b4 Biological races are sub-specificB therefore,

higher-order ta)a cannot be considered biological races. 3c4 Biological races divide speciesB therefore, a species cannot have only one race. 3d4 Biological races are populationsB therefore, individuals cannot be races. 3e4 Biological races freely interbreedB therefore, sibling sets do not typically constitute biological races. 3e4 Biological races are genotypically defined populationsB therefore, not all Cgenetic populationsC, as the ter& is used, are biological races. . #egarding the last point, in population genetics, the ter& 8genetic population9 is a&biguously used to refer to both breeding populations and to natural or descent populations. 'ulchen-o 3<>;>4 discusses these t0o concepts, noting6
/herefore a definition of a genetic population should be based on the chance that different alleles, present in the individuals in :uestion, can &i) togetherB if such chance is ,ero, 0e &ay consider such groups as different populations, each described by its o0n genotype and allelic fre:uencies and their dyna&ics. Based on this consideration, a genetic population &ay be defined in the follo0ing 0ay6 Two individuals, I1 and I , belong to the same population i! "a# the probability that they would have an o!!spring in common is greater than zero and "b# this probability is much higher than the probability o! I1 and I having an o!!spring in common with some individual I$, which is said to belong to another genetic population% !ere, to have an offspring in co&&on does not i&ply a direct offspring, but rather a co&&on descendent in a nu&ber of generations. !o0ever, in gene discover in general and G2' studies in particular 0e are usually not interested in future dyna&ics of allele and genotype distributions. 2hat is a &atter of concern in genetic association studies is potential co&&on ancestry F that is, that individuals &ay share co&&on ancestors and thus share in co&&on alleles, 0hich are e)act copies of the sa&e ancestral allele. Such alleles are called 8identical-by-descent,9 or IB% for short. . /hus for purposes of gene discovery 0e can define genetic population using retrospective ter&s based on the concept of IB%6 Two individuals, I1 and I , belong to the same genetic population i! "a# their genetic relationship, measured with the coe!!icient o! &inship, is greater than zero and "b# their &inship is much higher than &inship between them and some individual I$, which is said to belong to another genetic population%

In short, the ter& 8genetic population9 can &ean either Pbreeding populationsP 3a.-.a Pde&esP or Plocal populationsP 3see6 2ilbur et al., ;??K4 or Pnatural populationsPB though these t0o concepts are related and often not distinguished, they are logically distinct. 's a result of the conceptual difference, an individual can, given the sa&e level of analysis, be a &e&ber of one natural population and yet another breeding population. In -eeping 0ith the ety&ology of the ter& 8race9 3e.g., &fr. ra,,a 8race, breed, lineage, fa&ily94, and co&&on, if at ti&es only i&plied, usage in biology, the ter& Pbiological raceP 0ill be said to denote past genotype distributions, not possible future ones -- and so denote natural populations not genetic breeding populations. II-B. +hat E.olutionar" Biological Race #oes Not Re resent

;. Evolutionary races are natural, not artificial, biological populations. 's such, they are not 8types,9 8for&s,9 or 8&orphs.9 Ytr-alJ 3<>>A4, discussing the distinction bet0een natural and artificial classifications, notes6
N'n artificial classificationO is defined by "ayr and 'shloc- 3;??;6 @>?4 as 8classification based on convenient and conspicuous diagnostic characters 0ithout attention to characters indicating relationshipB often a classification based on a single arbitrarily chosen character instead of an evaluation of the totality of characters9. 's defined in /he Ca&bridge %ictionary of !u&an Biology and Evolution, artificial classification is 8any classification syste& in 0hich the &e&bers of a group rese&ble each other in the defining characters only, and sho0 no si&ilarity in nondefining characters.

'rtificial classification sche&as include, for e)a&ple, all lactose intolerant people, all &e&bers of a certain &itochondrial lineage, and all descendents of $han. /hese classifications are artificial in that the delineated populations or 8classes9 are not grouped by overall genetic si&ilarity. +re:uently, in these classifications, the defining characteristics are unrelated to other phenetic and genetic characters. Crucially, class &e&bership is not based on overall genetic si&ilarity. ItPs 0orth noting that Ytr-alJ 3<>>H4, a crusader against biological race, goes on to &a-e the self-contradictory argu&ent that races in the sense of %ob,hans-y 3;?A<4 represent artificial classifications, and therefore should be called 8for&s,9 not 8races.9 5et %ob,hans-yEs races, and biological races in general, are natural populations. 2ith regards to artificial populations and races, %oh,hans-y 3;?@@4 hi&self noted6
It 0ould be fallacious to define a race as a group of individuals having a given gene allele or a given chro&oso&al structure in co&&on. Since in &ost species there are &any variable genes and chro&oso&e structures, and since different genes and chro&oso&e structures are capable of for&ing a variety of co&binations, an individual or a population &ight belong to one UraceE as far as the gene ' is concerned, to a different UraceE 0ith respect to the gene B, to a still different UraceE 0ith respect to C, etc.

7i-e others, %oh,hans-y in so &any 0ords distinguished bet0een race as an artificial classification and race as a natural classification and noted that the ter& should correspond to the latter. <. Biological races are also not clusters of genetic characters. #ather, they are natural populations of organis&s 0hose alleles cluster as a result of co&&on ancestry. Biological races are populationsB the genes of the &e&bers of these populations cluster togetherB as such, genetic clusters inde) biological races but are not the&selves biological races. /hat distinction &ade, it should be noted that the ter& 8genetic cluster9 is often used as a euphe&is& for 8biological race.9 's $itcher 3<>>H4 notes 3e&phasis added46
'lthough conte&porary research &ay spea- of 8clusters9 rather than 8races,9 it is relatively easy to foresee that the old, loaded 0ord 0ill often substitute for the aseptic scientific ter&inology...

... 2hen such occasions arise, the obvious tactic is to try to find 0ays of insulating the research so that potentially da&aging conse:uences do not occur. Precisely this sensible tactic is prefigured in the use of the ter& UclustersE by the researchers on hu&an &igrations. *nfortunately, the pressure on science Journalis&, even in the &ost apparently respect-able &edia, to sensationali,e recent findings, led :uic-ly to the de&olition of the barrier that the investigators had hoped to erect.

2e, ho0ever, recogni,e the distinction bet0een a cluster of genetic characters, per se, and a biological population 3see belo04. II-C Races0 Clines0 and Clusters1 2hen discussing biological race, often the ter& CclineC is coughed up as a sort of retort. /he '&erican 'nthropology association even has a &odule called C#aces or clines1C 3italics added4. /he ter& CclineC 0as introduced by !u)ely 3;?=?4. !u)ely introduced it in order to correct for 0hat he sa0 as deficiencies arising fro& the practice of focusing solely on subspecific group differences. !e noted6
So&e special ter& see&s desirable to direct attention to variation 0ithin groups, and I propose the 0ord cline, &eaning a graduation in &easurable characters. /his, being technical, see&s preferable to such ter&s as characteristic-gradient or phrases such as Pgeographical progression of charactersP, used by 2. +. #eining in his recent boo- CEli&ination und Sele-tion.C 3Naturally, 0hen it can be sho0n that such characters are non-genetic in origin, they 0ill be valueless for ta)ono&ic purposes.4 Prefi)es can be used to denote clines of different types, for e)a&ple, ecocline, genocline 3gradient in genes4, geocline 3geographical cline4, chronocline. paleontological trend4, etc. /he ter& could be e)tended if desired, for e)a&ple, ontocline for regular trends in individual develop&ent. Clines &ay be of inter- or intra-group nature. Intergroup clines connect the &ean values of the subspecies of a polytypic species 3or of the species of a geographical subgenus or 'rten-reis4..... ....Intra-group clines concern continuous variation 0ithin a population. ....It is in no 0ay intended that specification by clines should replace any of the current ta)ono&ic &ethods. It 0ould constitute a supple&entary &ethod 0hich, it is suggested, 0ould correct certain defects inherent in that of na&ing areal groups notably in stressing continuity and regularity of variation as against &ere distinctiveness of groups. It is i&portant to note that clines for different characters &ay run in different directions 3shri-es, fo)-sparro0s, lincoln sparro0s, etc.4.

!u)ley did not see clines and races as antithetical, hence he allo0ed for intersubspecies clines. "ore to the point, his cline concept describes a character gradient. 's such, a Ccline is an arrange&ent of characters, not of organis&s or of populationsC 3Si&pson, ;?A;4. 's a result, a race can belong to as &any different clines as it has charactersB if it belongs to &ore than one, it is no less a race. 's 0e noted above, evolutionary biological races refer to natural biological populations. /he individual &e&bers of these populations are assigned according to their overall genotypic relatedness. Specific characters, phenotypic and genetic 3e.g., specific genetic loci4 are used to infer this relatedness. /hese specific characters do not define the natural populations. Si&pson &ade this clarification 0ith regards to evolutionary ta)a in general6
!ere it is necessary again to e&phasi,e the distinction bet0een definition and the evidence that the definition is &et. 2e propose to define ta)ono&ic categories in evolutionary and to the largest

e)tent phylogenetic ter&s, but to use evidence that is al&ost entirely nonphylogenetic 0hen ta-en as individual observations. In spite of the considerable confusion about this distinction, even a&ong so&e ta)ono&ists, it is really not particularly difficult or esoteric. /he 0ell--no0n e)a&ple of &ono,ygotic 3CidenticalC4 t0ins is e)planatory and is so&ething &ore than an analogy. 2e define such t0ins as t0o individuals developed fro& one ,ygote. No one has ever seen this occur in hu&ans, be 0e recogni,e 0hen the definition is &et by evidence of si&ilarities sufficient to sustain the inference. /he individuals in :uestion are not t0in because they are si&ilar. but :uite the contrary, are si&ilar because they are t0ins. Precisely so, individuals do not belong to the sa&e ta)on because they are si&ilar but are si&ilar because they belong to the sa&e ta)on.

2ith evolutionary races, populations are differentiated and individuals are grouped based on their overall genotypic si&ilarity. /his si&ilarity is often evidenced by si&ilarity in specific characters. Clines donEt even describe populationsB they describe characters. /he Justaposition of clines 0ith races, then, represents a categorical confusionB clines, or character gradients, should be Ju)taposed 0ith character clusters. 'roperly understood, there is no (cline versus race) debate% But there is a substantive issue that 0e have not touched upon. 2hen the 8clines, not races9 argu&ent is not altogether conceptually confusedF0hen it is only se&antically so Fit raises an issue that 0e &ust address. So&eti&es natural populations are such that they for& a s&ooth genetic population continuu&. 3/his is not the case, though, for hu&an continental populations 32eiss and +ullerton, <>>GB #osenberg et al., <>>G4.4 In ,oology, these are si&ply -no0n as population continuu&s, and are distinguished fro& population isolates. If 0e ta-e 8cline9 to &ean population continuu&, then 0e &ight rephrase the '&erican 'nthropological 'ssociationEs :uestion as6 8#aces or population continuu&s1C But this begs the :uestion6 8#aces6 not population continuu&s19 's defined above, and as consistent 0ith ,oological practice, races can e)ist in a population continuu&. The existence o! a population continuum is not even inconsistent with the !ormal zoological recognition o! biological races "*ayr and +shloc&, 1,,1#% 's /aylor et al. note6
'o ulation structure refers to the geogra hic arrange)ent of local o ulations across the s ecies< range. 'o ulation structure can be described in ter)s of three heno)ena: the o ulation continuu)0 geogra hic isolates0 and 9ones of secondar" intergradation :h"brid 9ones; :e.g.0 2a"r and Ashloc70 =>>=;. The o ulation continuu) is that art of the s ecies< range where there is continuit" of contact a)ong local o ulations0 so)e of which )a" be recogni9ed as subs ecies if sufficientl" differentiated. ?E) hasis added.@

/his is not to say that population structure has no relevance to biological race. If the genetic structure of a species for&ed a perfect population continuu&, it 0ould be i&possible to e&pirically delineate natural populations in an obJective 0ay. /his point 0as noted by Si&pson 3;?A;46
/he point 0ill be discussed later, but even here it is advisable Just to &ention that such arbitrary subdivision does not necessarily produce ta)a that are either PunrealP or Punnatural,P as has so&eti&es been stated. ' si&ple but, at this point, sufficient e)planatory analogy is provided by a piece of string that shades continuously fro&, say, blue at one end to green at the other. Cutting the string into t0o is an arbitrary act, but the resulting pieces are perfectly real section of the string that e)isted as natural parts of the 0hole before they 0ere severed.

Si&pson 3;?A;4 0as correct that dividing a perfect continuity 0ould result in e&pirically arbitrary delineations. But rarely are 0e faced 0ith perfect continuu&s. 's a result, nonarbitrary or obJective delineations of groups can be had, e.g., using unsupervised cluster &apping progra&s 3such as S/#*C/*#E4. So long as the underlying natural populations e)hibit 8s&all discontinuous Ju&ps in genetic distance9 bet0een the& 3#osenberg et al., <>>G4, clusters can be identified obJectively at a given level of focus. /hese clusters can then be used to infer obJective races. II-#. Clarification on the 2eaning of 3Arbitrar"3 and 3/b4ecti.e3 in Context to 'o ulation #elineations 't this point, itPs 0orth0hile distinguishing bet0een t0o types of 8arbitrariness9 0hen it co&es to natural population delineations6 &etaphysical and e&pirical. It is no0 accepted that there are no unalterable &etaphysical essences 0hich underlie and &aintain natural population divisions. /his 0as 3arguably4 not al0ays the case. In pre-%ar0inian ti&es, species realis&, 0hich arguably posited so&e type of &etaphysical essence, 0as a co&&only held vie0B it 0as a live :uestion as to 0hether, as Charles 7yell put it,Cspecies have a real and per&anent e)istence in natureB or 0hether they are capable, as so&e naturalists pretend, of being indefinitely &odified in the course of a long series of generations9. 7yell, hi&self, held the species realist vie0 that Cspecies have a real e)istence in nature, and that each 0as endo0ed, at the ti&e of its creation, 0ith the attributes and organi,ation by 0hich it is no0 distinguished.C Since, fro& our conte&porary perspective, there donEt appear to be such essences, one could say -- and it so&eti&es is said -- that natural population delineation is arbitrary in a metaphysical sense. Put another 0ay, biological ta)ono&ic delineations, in general, are not &etaphysical facts of the 0orld. /his being the case, though, doesnEt entail that natural population delineations are empirically arbitrary. If so&e delineation criteria are specified, if the criteria are e&pirical, and if 0e consistently group according to these criteria, the delineations are by definition e&pirically non-arbitrary. /hey &ay be conventional, but they are yet non-arbitrary. "oreover, if the delineations are &ade on the basis of biological or genetic data alone 3e.g., using &ultilocus genotype clustering or unsupervised genetic clustering4, they can be said to be biologically obJective along some dimension% No0, to be clear, there is no necessary contradiction bet0een arbitrary delineations and the e)istence of evolutionary races. !ence, even for&ally recogni,ed evolutionary races can be carved out of population continuu&s. #egarding hu&ans, one could, for e)a&ple, out of genetic space carve out an indigenous 2est-2est Eurasian race and co&pare it to an indigenous East-East Eurasian race. Even if these populations 0ere obJectively unidentifiable on the basis of genetic data, even if they 0ere culturally delineated, they 0ould constitute different natural biological populations on account that the individuals in each population 0ere &ore genotypically si&ilar to their population than to the other population. /he ter& CarbitraryC is so&e0hat &isleading as there is a sense in 0hich all natural population classifications are necessarily not so -- they are, after all, not artificial classifications as defined above. %ar0in &ade this point about natural classifications,

noting6 UU+ro& the first da0n of life, all organic beings are found to rese&ble each other in descending degrees, so that they can be classed in groups under groups. /his classification is evidently not arbitrary li-e the grouping of the stars in constellationsEE 3%ar0in, ;KG? N;?A@O, p. @;;4. II-E. The 5e)antic /b4ection Before &oving on, 0e should address 0hat 0e could call the 8se&antic obJection,9 0hich concerns the use of the ter& 8race9 to describe the particular 8genetic9 populations that 0e recogni,e as races. +or si&plicityEs sa-e, 0e 0ill do this in :uestion and ans0er for&at. D6 2hy should 0e call 0hat you call races 8races91 2hy not Just call the& 9genetic populationsC, as population geneticists do1 A: As ex lained abo.e0 o ulation genetics use the ter) $genetic o ulation& a)biguousl": so)eti)es to )ean ros ecti.el" understood genetic o ulations0 so)eti)es to )ean retros ecti.el" understood genetic o ulations. Consistent with the et")olog" of the word $race& and with its redo)inant usage in biolog"0 both historic and conte) oraneous0 we use the ter) $race& to refer to the latter. (or a si)ilar reason0 we don<t use the Anthro ologists< a)biguous 3ethnicit"3. B" this0 anthro ologists so)eti)es )ean 3cultural grou s3 and so)eti)es 3res ecti.el" understood genetic o ulations :races;3. The et")olog" of the ter) reflects a si)ilar a)biguit" -- for exa) le0 ethnikos )eant 3ado ted to the genius or custo)s of a eo le3 and ethnos )eant 3nation or grou s of eo le li.ing together3. The for)er sounds li7e 3cultural grou s3 and latter sounds li7e 3breeding o ulations3. D6 2hy should 0e not reserve the ter& 3biological4 8race9 for ,oological subspecies1 '6 /he ,oological subspecies concept, also -no0n as the 8geographic race9 concept, is too e)clusive for our purposes. 's it is, the concept i&plies a &ore generic 3biological4 concept of race, one that is not geographically circu&scribedB hence 8geographic9 &odifies 8race.9 .ne cannot &a-e sense of either the 8geographic race9 ter& or concept 0ithout a &ore generic biological race concept. 'lso, see section -!.; 3in conJunction 0ith the long list of race definitions above4 concerning historic usage. D6 2hy not Just call 8races9 8genetic clusters91 In Section II-C, 0e pointed out the difference bet0een CclustersC and CracesC. D6 2hy not Just call 8races9 8subspecific natural biological populations91 '6 +or one, 8race9 has ;@ fe0er syllables. (ust as 8de&e9 is a less clu&sy 0ay of referring to 8breeding population9, CraceC is a &uch less clu&sy 0ay of referring to the concept under discussion. 'lso, referring to Csubspecific natural biological populationsC

as CracesC allo0s us to address the &any biological argu&ents against 8raceC, 0here CraceC is ta-en to &ean this 3see e.g., Section I -G4. It should be noted that this 8se&antic obJection9 is often e&ployed not Just against the ter& 8race,9 but also, in a rather confused 0ay, against the concept of biological race F as if, by so&e &agic, the validity of the concept under :uestion could be under&ined by attac-ing the ter& 0e called it. II-(. #ifferent Conce ts of Biological Race 2eEve noted that there are a nu&ber of different concepts of 8biological race,9 and that &ost share a co&&on core 0hich 0e call the ordinary biological race concept. Specific race concepts differ in ho0 they :ualify the ordinary biological race concept. In the &ost inclusive sense, all natural populations that reliably differ fro& one another in gene fre:uencies can be considered biological races. Cha&pioning this concept, %oh,hans-y 3;?@A4 noted6
.ne &ay perhaps :uestion the desirability of applying the ter& Uracial differencesE to distinctions as s&all as those that can be found bet0een populations of neighboring villages and as large as those bet0een populations of different continents. "ight one &odify the definition of race by specifying that the differences in gene fre:uencies be above a certain &ini&u& &agnitude1 Such a &odification is undesirable for t0o reasons. +irst, since all &agnitudes of difference are found a&ong populations, any specified &ini&u& can be only arbitrary. Second, it is &ost i&portant to reali,e that the differences bet0een the U&aJorE hu&an races are funda&entally of the sa&e nature as the relatively &inute differences bet0een the inhabitants of adJacent to0ns or villages.

.thers accept the core concept but :ualify it differently, creating &ore e)clusive groupings. +or e)a&ple, "ayrEs biological races describe geographically circu&scribed evolutionary races, e.g., &icrogeographic and geographic races. !ootonPs 3;?<@4 and ogel and "otuls-yPs 3;?KA4 biological races describe broad subspecific divisions, presu&ably e)cluding &icrogeographic races. Sarich and "ielePs 3<>><4, PearsonPs 3<>><4, and ogel and "otuls-yPs 3;?KA4 biological races describe natural populations 0hich differ 8significantly9 in genetically conditioned phenotypic traits. 'll of these concepts of biological race overlap, and in principle, none of the& 3see& to4 conflict in ter&s of the core conceptB they si&ply :ualify this concept in a different 0ayB e.g., !ooton 3;?<A46 8great divisions9B !ulse 3;?A=46 8readily distinguished9B ogel and "otuls-y 3;?KA46 8a large population... a significant fraction9B 7eori 3<>>G46 8collectively rare9 variantsB Pearson 3<>><46 8a large e)tended fa&ily,9 shared 8distinctive identifying biological characteristics9B Sarich and "iele 3<>><46 8reasonably discrete.9 's %oh,hans-y noted, such :ualifications are arbitrary in the sense that they donEt &odify the underlying biological reality being described. II-!. The Relationshi between the E.olutionar" Race Conce t and /ther Race Conce ts and a 5et Conce tion of E.olutionar" Race /he race concepts listed at the beginning of Section II represent &odifications of the ordinary biological race concept. Generally, they describe natural subspecific

populations. 's far as 0e can tell, &any of these are &ore in line 0ith the evolutionary school than the cladistic school in that genotypic and not &erely genealogical relatedness is ta-en into account. Concepts that clearly ta-e genotype into account include6 %ob,hans-y 3;?@@4, Boyd 3;?G>4, Garn 3;?H;4, !ulse 3;?A<4, ogel 3;??H4, Cro0 3<>><4, 7eori 3<>>G4, "ayr 3;?A=4, Brues 3;??<4, "ayr 3<>><4, Groves 3<>>@4, and Coyne 3<>;<4. 'l&ost all of these concepts, ho0ever, discuss race at the population level. 'ccordingly, races are populations 0hich differ in overall gene fre:uencies o0ing to differential descent. 2hile the evolutionary race concept is &ost fre:uently for&ulated as a population concept, 0e can readily refor&ulate it as a set one, since populations represent sets of individuals. +ro& the set perspective, races are spatiote&porally located sets of freely interbreeding organis&s in 0hich organis&s of each set are &ore genotypically related 3i.e., given the totality of all %N' infor&ation4 to each other, o0ing to their individual ancestry, relative to &e&bers of other subspecific sets. /his conception, then, rese&bles 'ulchen-oPs 3<>;>4 retrospectively understood genetic population concept. /his conception is not 0ithout a&biguityB to clarify it, 0e have to go beyond previous definitions. But before doing so, 0e &ight 3but should 0e really need to14 as-6 does this set version of the evolutionary race concept, itself, have a reasonable clai& to the na&e 8race91 2e thin- so, as 8biological race9 has been defined in this &anner. +or e)a&ple, 7ong et al. 3<>>?4 note6
/he pattern of %N' se:uence diversity also creates so&e unsettling proble&s for applying to hu&ans the definition of races as groups of populations 0ithin 0hich the individuals are &ore related to each other than they are to &e&bers of other such groups 3!artl and Clar-, ;??H4. /his definition essentially enco&passes /e&ple-tonEs evolutionary lineage definition of race 3/e&pleton, ;???4 and %ob,hans-yEs gene fre:uency definition of race. 3%ob,hans-y, ;?H>4. 3e&phasis added4

II-6. Clarification of the 5tate)ent 32ore Related b" #escent3 /o forestall confusion, 0e &ust briefly clarify the phrase 8&ore genotypically related9 in conte)t to a set vie0 of races. /he genotypic differences bet0een the sets of individuals called evolutionary races &ust result fro& differences in genealogy, not shared evolutionary history since individual organis&s donEt have evolutionary histories. In this sense, races as sets of organis&s are genotypically different o0ing solely to genealogy. Evolutionary histories 3genetic non-divergence, divergence4 co&e into play at the level of the population or lineage seg&ent. /he lineage seg&ents the&selves differ on the account of both phylogeny 3genealogy4 and evolutionary history 3divergence4. 2hen 0e leave out discussion of evolutionary history as a factor conditioning relatedness in the conte)t of the set definition of race, it is only because individual organis&s donEt have evolutionary histories, not because 0e are flirting 0ith a cladistic conception. In evolutionary biology, individual organis&s are grouped into natural populations according to pedigree, since, on the level of the individual, genealogical si&ilarity alone e)plains genotypic, and 0ith it concordant phenotypic, si&ilarity. 2hen it co&es to the level of populations 30hich is 0hat ta)ono&y concerns itself 0ith4, factors other than genealogy co&e into play in e)plaining genotypic si&ilarity. +ollo0ing the evolutionary

school 3Section I-+4, these factors are ta-en into account and populations are classified by 3descent Z &odification V4 genotype. #egarding the level of the individual organis&, it is generally assu&ed that pairs of individuals fro& the sa&e population, defined in ter&s of pedigree, 0ill be &ore si&ilar to each other in genotype than 0ill be pairs of individuals fro& different populations. !o0ever, this basic evolutionary intuition has been challenged. +or e)a&ple, BarbuJani et al. 3<>;=4 argued that the genotypic si&ilarity bet0een t0o individuals fro& the sa&e pedigree defined population can fre:uently be less than that bet0een t0o individuals fro& t0o different so defined populations. /hey state6
/oday, develop&ents in %N' se:uencing technology allo0 us to co&pare co&pletely se:uenced geno&es. 'hn et al. 3G@4 observed that t0o *S scientists of European origin, na&ely (a&es 2atson 3;;4 and Craig enter 3<4, share fe0er SNPs 3@A;,>>>4 than either of the& shares 0ith a $orean scientist, Seong-(in $i& 3GA?,>>> and @K;,>>>, respectively4 3+igure <4. .f course, this does not &ean that, on average, people of European origin are genetically closer to 'sians than to other Europeans. !o0ever, it does sho0 that patterns of genetic rese&blance are far &ore co&plicated than any sche&e of racial classification can account for. .n the basis of the subJectsE physical aspect, a physician 0ould consider enterEs %N', and not $i&Es, a better appro)i&ation to 2atsonEs %N'. %espite ideological state&ents to the contrary 3GG, GA4 racial labels are positively &isleading in &edicine, and 0herever one is to infer individual geno&e characteristics.

7i-e0ise, $eita et al. 3<>>@4 have argued6

'rgu&ents against the e)istence of hu&an races 3the ta)a C"ongoloidC,CCaucasoidC and CNegroidC and those fro& other classifications4 include those stated for subspecies and several others. /he 0ithin- to bet0een-group variation is very high for genetic poly&orphis&s 3KG[B refs. ;A,;H4. /his &eans that individuals fro& one CraceC &ay be overall &ore si&ilar to individuals in one of the other CracesC than to other individuals in the sa&e CraceC.

In line 0ith the above argu&ents, 2itherspoon 3<>>H4 found that for recently ad&i)ed populations 3e.g., South 'sians, 'frican '&ericans, 7atinos4 F but not for distant ones separated by geographic barriers 3e.g., Europeans, East 'sians, sub-Saharan 'fricans4 F pairs of individuals fro& the sa&e pedigree-defined populations 0ere not always &ore si&ilar to each other 0ith respect to ;>,>>> genetic loci than pairs of individuals fro& different populations. /his suggests that, on the individual level, genealogical and genotypic si&ilarity need not al0ays correspond. !o0ever the results are not clear cut. /al 3<>;<4, discussing the e)a&ple of (a&es 2atson, Craig enter, and Seong-(in $i&, noted6
.ur &odel also facilitates the assess&ent of results fro& analysis of co&plete geno&e se:uences. /he study of 'hn et al. 3<>>?4 suggests that the pair0ise distances a&ong three individuals, a $orean 38S($94, Craig enter and (a&es 2atson, &easured by &ultilocus 'S%, are roughly si&ilar despite the distinct geographical origin of S($ in relation to enter and 2atson 3see also their +ig. < E4. /hese results are surprising in light of our &odel for n , 0hich predicts that for 0orld0ide distant populations 3+S/ X >.;=4 the probability for such an occurrence is virtually ,ero given as little as <>> independent and infor&ative SNPs 3'ppendi) +, +ig. +.;4. In fact, 0ith roughly =.G &illion SNPs se:uenced in each individual geno&e, the pair0ise distances enterS 2atson and enterSS($ 3or 2atsonSS($4 &ust sho0 substantial discrepancy, since the ratio of average pair0ise distances #'% is above ;.= already at +S/ V >.;> 3see +ig. G'4. /he parado)ical result is &ost li-ely an artifact of the high error rate and lo0 coverage in 2atsonEs SNP calling 35ngvadottir et al., <>>?4.

In short, it see&s :uite unli-ely that enter actually shares &ore genetic infor&ation 0ith $i& than 0ith 2atson. /al 3<>;<4 found the follo0ing, based on a hypothetical infinite nu&ber of slightly infor&ative loci6
/he probability that a rando& pair of individuals fro& the sa&e population is &ore genetically dissi&ilar than a rando& pair fro& distinct populations is pri&arily dependent on the nu&ber of infor&ative poly&orphic loci across geno&es fro& the total population pool. /his probability asy&ptotically approaches ,ero 0ith a sufficiently large nu&ber of infor&ative loci, even in the case of close or ad&i)ed population.

/he reason for the disagree&ent bet0een the results of /al 3<>;<4 and 2itherspoon 3<>>H4 concerning close and ad&i)ed populations is not clear. /alPs 3<>;<4 results fit 0ith those of Gao and "artin 3<>>?4 0ho found al&ost co&plete differentiation bet0een populations 0hen using a large nu&ber of loci. 2hatever the case, 0e have to ta-e into account possible instances of such discordance. /hough it parallels that that arises bet0een populations -- this situation arises 0hen concerning oneself 0ith individual organis&s. 's ta)ono&y concerns itself 0ith populations, 0e can not directly i&port evolutionary ta)ono&ist principles to clarify the &atter. 'nd since this topic is rarely discussed, 0e have little guidance in general. Instead of saying ho0 evolutionary race, conceptuali,ed as a set, should be conceived, 0e 0ill present t0o possibilities6 'edigree A genot" e e.olutionar" races6 individuals are &e&bers of one of a set of races if and only if they are, due to individual pedigree, &ore genotypically related to &e&bers of that race than to &e&bers of different races. 's such, if 2atson is, in fact, &ore genotypically si&ilar to "ongoloids than Caucasoids, 0e 0ould not classify hi& as Caucasoid despite his presu&ed pedigree, and 0e 0ould not classify hi& as a "ongoloid due to his presu&ed pedigree. !e 0ould be unclassifiable in principle. !enot" ic e.olutionar" set races6 individuals are &e&bers of one of a set of races if and only if they are &ore genotypically related to &e&bers of that race than to &e&bers of different races. 's such, if 2atson is, in fact, &ore genotypically si&ilar to "ongoloids than Caucasoids, 0e 0ould classify hi& as a "ongoloid, despite his supposed pedigree. Since 0e are advancing an evolutionary \ genotypic concept of race, 0e are open to classifying our hypothetical 2atson si&ply based on genotype alone. If t0o horses begat, in the natural 0ay, a genotypic and phenotypic hu&an, &ost people 0ould probably classify the genealogical horse-genotypic hu&an as a hu&an. /hat is, 0e i&agine that &ost people 0ould classify by genotypic-phenotypic si&ilarity, and not pedigree, in case of gross discordance. So, 0hen it co&es to racial groups, doing the sa&e 0ouldnPt see& to us to be unreasonable. "oreover, a genotypic alone criteria see&s to be &ore or less consistent 0ith an evolutionary ta)ono&ist approach since by this genealogy is seen as a heuristic to achieve &ore accurate genotypic classifications. 's "ayr and Boc- 3<>><4 noted6
+or %ar0in, neither si&ilarity nor genealogy is the Upri&aryE criterion for ordering, because the analysis of genealogy si&ply leads to a &ore reliable use of si&ilarity in the establish&ent of classes 3ta)a4 of organis&s. /he criterion of co&&on descent 0as for %ar0in not a replace&ent of the criterion of si&ilarity, but rather a constraint on 0hat -ind of si&ilarity could be accepted as evidence for relationship.

2hatever the case, 0e leave the issue undeter&ined. /hese are Just different for&ulations of a basic conception. In practice, this isnEt a pressing &atter, since, on the

individual level, the correspondence bet0een the t0o for&s of relatedness is e)tre&ely high 0hen dealing 0ith non-trivially-differentiated populations. Nonetheless, the issue has forced us to clarify the &atter. 'nd it has brought up an interesting theoretical concern 0ith regards to our understanding of 0hat constitutes 8natural populations9. II-I. Esti)ating Co) osite #NA 5i)ilarit" /0o issues, one practical and one theoretical, arise 0hen it co&es to esti&ating genotypic si&ilarity. +irst, practically spea-ing, ho0 is genotypic si&ilarity inde)ed1 2itherspoon 3<>>H4 outlines several pair0ise esti&ates, e.g., dissi&ilarity fraction, pair0ise genetic distance, and centroid classification rate. 2e 0ill assu&e that, using the sa&e infor&ation, there 0ill be a very high concordance bet0een &ethods, and so 0e need not endorse any particular &ethod. Second, ho0 is si&ilarity conceptuali,ed1 Both theoretical and e&pirical results indicate that individuals can be classified into populations 0ith a higher rate of accuracy than the probability of pair0ise si&ilarity 0ould suggest. /his situation has been illustrated by 2itherspoon et al. 3<>>H4, Straus and !ubbe 3<>;>4, and /al 3<>;<4. /al 3<>;<4 noted6
2itherspoon et al. rightfully suggest that classification &ethods typically &a-e use of aggregate properties of populations, 0hile 0 Ndissi&ilarity fractionO &erely reflects properties of pairs of individuals. E)panding on this insight, 0e note that allele-sharing distances, 0hether used in individual pair0ise co&parisons or distances of individuals to population centroids, do not ta-e into account the shape of the distributions 3i.e., the varianceScovariance &atrices of the 0ithinpopulation genotype distributions4. /his e)plains 0hy the slo0 decline of n is &ost pro&inent 0ith closely-related populations and rare alleles6 the lo0 "'+ of rare poly&orphis&s induce lo0 variances 30ith fre:uency p the variance is p 3; ] p44, such that populations are UflatterE in the di&ension corresponding to these loci in the &ultidi&ensional space of &ultilocus genotypes. 2hen populations are close, bet0een-population pairs of individuals are then liable to be closer than &any 0ithin-population pairs.

/he discordance &eans that one can define genotypic si&ilarity to &ean si&ilarity to a population as a 0hole, a conception 0hich ta-es into account population propertiesB or, one can define si&ilarity to &ean pair0ise genotypic si&ilarity to all other &e&bers of the population. /he for&er &ethod is &ore inclusive6 for a given :uantity of genetic infor&ation, fe0er individuals 0ill have undeter&ined &e&bership. /he latter &ethod has a &ore essentialist :uality. Both allo0 for discrete categori,ations and one could define the &e&bership of a race either 0ay. ' race could be said to be co&prised of the set of all individuals 0ho, based on genotype, are &ore si&ilar to a given population as a 0holeB or it could be said to be co&prised of the set of all individuals 0ho are &ore closely genotypically related to each other than to all &e&bers of different subspecific populations. So 0e have another pair of for&ulations6 'airwise genot" e races, and classification genot" e races. 2e prefer the for&er, 0hich follo0s 'ulchen-oPs 3<>;>4 3retrospective genetic population4 conception, as this gives us a &ore essentialist concept of race -- in the sense that all &e&bers in a race share a co&&onality 0ith each other instead of only 0ith respect to the population as a 0hole. /o put this preference into perspective, "ichael 7evin, a 0ell--no0n racial hereditarian and defender of biological race, tells us6
+inally, it &ay be re:uired that any t0o &e&bers of one race rese&ble each other genetically or phenotypically &ore than either rese&ble any &e&ber of any other race, as 0hen it is obJected that 0ithin-group variances greatly e)ceed group &ean differences or constitute a large portion of

total variance. /hese constraints create an easily dispatched stra0 &an but are no part of the ordinary connotation of CraceC or of any serious scientific or nor&ative controversy. 37evin, <>><4

2e donEt believe that this for&ulation of race can be easily dispatched, but 0e agree that the pair0ise si&ilar understanding of racial &e&bership is a relatively strict one. /o be clear, though, 0e are not saying that this is ho0 evolutionary race &e&bership is assignedB this is Just the for&ulation that 0e prefer. (ust as 0e could assign &e&bers to an evolutionary race by genotype or by genotype Z pedigree, 0e can assign the& by pair0ise genotypic si&ilarity or classificability. . II-,. 2ixed and *ndifferentiated Indi.iduals 's i&plied in the above discussion, under unusual circu&stances, so&e individuals &ay in principle not be assignable to a race due to a discordance bet0een individual pedigree and genotype. .thers &ay not be assignable in practice si&ply on account of the degree of genotypic relatedness involved. /here are t0o broad 0ays in 0hich this latter situation &ight occur. +irst, 0hen dealing 0ith closely related or ad&i)ed races, so&e individuals &ay not be assignable to any one of a set of races, especially given our pair0ise conception. /he li-elihood of such occurrences see&s to be undeter&ined 3see6 /al, <>;= vs. 2itherspoon et al., <>>H4. Second, &e&bers of close or ad&i)ed races &ight not be assignable to races at a coarser level of focus6 for e)a&ple, continental races 3e.g., Caucasoid and "ongoloid4 are co&prised of nu&erous regional races, also -no0n as Cethnic groupsCB but so&e regional races fall in ,ones of intergradation 3e.g., in central 'sia4 such that neither the regional races nor their &e&bers can be assigned to a continental race. 2e do not find it proble&atic 0hen, due to ad&i)ture or a lac- of differentiation, individuals cannot be assigned to a race at so&e level of focus. /hese individuals can be assigned to statistical populations labeled 8undifferentiated race9 or 8&i)ed race.9 Nothing pertaining to our conceptuali,ation of evolutionary races precludes it, and in ,oology, situations such as this are co&&on. II-%. Essential0 Cluster0 and (u99" 5ets and Bac7 to 'o ulations /he solution is si&ple6 putting aside the fact that (orde et al. based their result on a li&ited set of genetic infor&ation, that is, treating the results as if they 0ere the results found 0hen using the totality of genetic data, 0e 0ould 3ta-ing a continental perspective4 classify our South 'sian Indians into an undefined discrete 8&aJor race.9 If 0e 0anted to, 0e could characteri,e the& as being either &i)ed or undifferentiated, and so as representing part of either a ,one of secondary intergradation or a ,one of pri&ary intergradation, respectively. /hen 0e could describe their relatedness to each &aJor discrete raceF0hich is basically 0hat (orde et al. do 0hen they discuss the relative a&ount of 8continental ancestry9 of the various groups.

/his discrete-plus-fu,,y set conception allo0s us to integrate race as understood as a set 0ith so&e of the conceptually fu,,ier understandings of race as a population, 0here 0hat e)actly :ualifies an individual as a &e&ber of a given population is left open. 2e can then readily &ove bac- and forth bet0een discussing races as discrete sets of individuals and race as populations 0ith non-discrete borders. +e )ight further conce tuali9e biological races as re resenting o.erla ing ancestrall" defined grou s. (or exa) le0 in the case of hu)ans0 the sets of indi.iduals descended fro) Charle)agne and descendent fro) Confucius could be said to re resent two o.erla ing biological races0 with )e)bershi assigned on a h" o-descent basis. These o ulations would o.erla because while )an" indi.iduals share both lineages )an" share onl" one or the other. Though )e)bershi would o.erla 0 the o ulations ta7en as wholes :as indi.iduals; would differ. +hile such o ulations undoubtedl" constitute biological o ulations of a sort0 being for)s of for)s0 the" don<t constitute0 as we are characteri9ing the)0 e.olutionar" natural o ulations0 since the" are not being defined in ter)s of overall genetic :genot" ic; si)ilarit". 5uch o ulations could be said to re resent artificial biological races ro er. *nli7e ,arred #ia)ond<s lactose intolerant races these t" es of artificial o ulations actuall" ha.e a clai) to the na)e 3race3 -- that is0 this was one of the wa"s in which the ter) 3race3 was historicall" used :e.g.0 to refer to noble edigree;. II--. 5ociological Clarifications :a; 5ociological .ersus Biological Races /he ter& 8biological 3scientific4 race concept9 i&plies that there are also non-biological 3scientific4 race concepts. +or e)a&ple, there are sociological race concepts6 those race concepts used in the social sciences. Sociological race concepts, and corresponding classifications, &ay or &ay not reasonably coincide 0ith biological race concepts and classifications. /o the e)tent that the sociological and biological concepts and classifications do not reasonably &atch up, the for&er can be said to be non-biological 3scientific4. 3!ere, again, 0e are understanding the ter& 8biological race9 to &ean race as defined in the biological sciences, not &erely in the sense of a concept of race 0hich involves so&e genetic based differencesB see Section I-!.4 So&e e:uate non-biological 3scientific4 races 0ith 8socially constructed races9 30hich 0e distinguish fro& 8sociological races94. /his e:uation is proble&atic, as it presupposes that biological races and other biological groups cannot the&selves be 8social constructs9B that biological races necessarily are, in philosophical ter&s, 8natural -inds9 F the converse of 8social constructs.9 But, as 0e have seen, 8natural -inds9 have been defined in a &yriad of 0ays, and under &any definitions biological groupings such as species, subspecies, and de&es are not natural -inds. Indeed, the Stanford %ictionary of Philosophy tells us 3Bird and /obin, <>;<46
%espite the traditional conception of species as natural -inds, the vie0 is difficult to sustain. +irst, 0e should e)pect entities to be &e&bers of a natural -ind in virtue of their intrinsic features, and

intrinsically identical entities should be &e&bers of the sa&e ta)a. But this is not the case for species, since t0o organis&s cannot be &e&bers of the sa&e species, ho0ever si&ilar, unless they have a co&&on ancestor F a cat-li-e organis& independently evolved on a distant planet 0ould not be a cat.

If 0e grant the e:uation of 8socially constructed9 0ith 8non-biological,9 by &any understandings of 0hat it is to be 8socially constructed,9 nu&erous groupings 0hich are generally understood as being biological 3e.g., species4 cease to be so6 reductio ad absurdum. :b; 5ociological Races .ersus 5ociologicall" 5ignificant Traits #egardless of 0hether and to 0hat e)tent sociological races correspond 0ith biological ones, any given difference bet0een the& &ight possibly be congenital. /he sa&e holds for all sociological 3and socially constructed4 groupingsB for e)a&ple, so&e of the differences bet0een social classes, such as cognitive ability, have been sho0n to have a substantial congenital basis 3#o0e, et al. ;??KB /r,as-o0s-i, et al. <>;@B see also6 Clar-, <>;@4. Generally, since outco&e variance 0ithin sociological races and 0ithin the &etapopulations containing the& can often be attributed in part to genes, outco&e variance bet0een any t0o sociologically defined races can often reasonably be hypothesi,ed as being genetically conditioned. /he :uestions one &ust as-6 're there relevant phenotypic difference bet0een these sociological races1 /o 0hat e)tent are the differences genetically conditioned1 'nd ho0 did these genetic differences arise1 2ith regard to these :uestions, the debate about 8biological race9 is largely orthogonal6 sociological races &ight not correspond 0ith biological racesB if the t0o correspond, the &e&bers of the for&er &ight not be representative of the latterB biological race doesnPt necessitate specific genetically conditioned differencesB and a lac- of correspondence bet0een sociological and biological races does not preclude genetic differences bet0een sociological ones. In so&e instances, biological race &ight be relevant in that it &ight offer a conceptual fra&e0or- for understanding 0hy differences e)ist bet0een sociological races. 5et there can still be differences bet0een sociological races independent of differences bet0een biological ones. ' realistic scenario6 in Country ', &e&bers of Sociological #ace ; e)press /rait P to a lesser e)tent than do &e&bers of Sociological #ace <, si&ply on account of differential &igrant selectionB &e&bership in Sociological #ace ; and Sociological #ace < correspond perfectly to &e&bership in Biological #ace ; and Biological #ace <, respectivelyB but Biological #ace ; and Biological #ace < do not differ genetically in /rait P. /his illustrates the indirect relation bet0een biological race and congenital social race differences. #eferring to such a scenario, Nisbett et al. 3<>;<4, dedicated racial environ&entalists, note the follo0ing in regards to East 'sian perfor&ance in the *S6

"atters in the *nited States have changed since the passage of i&&igration la0s in the late ;?A>s that encouraged the i&&igration of highly s-illed 0or-ers. /hat change resulted in a huge inflo0 of talented East and South 'sians. /hese people bring on average very substantial educational and cultural capital and undoubtedly so&e genetic advantage over the general *.S. population.

' perusal of the %atabase on I&&igrants in .EC% Countries 3%I.C4 sho0s that the sa&e logic &ust hold for other populations, so&e being &ore genetically selected, others less so. /hese points are obvious and trivial F or should be. But this obviousness hasnEt prevented legions of acade&ics and pundits fro& arguing against the e)istence of differences bet0een sociological races on the grounds that said races do not perfectly correspond 0ith biological races. +or e)a&ple, 'lland 3<>>@4 reasons that6
N7evin, <>><O should instead say that the social group referred to as 8blac-9 or 8'frican '&erican9 consistently scores lo0er on ID tests than do &e&bers of the social group referred to as 80hite.9 .n the other hand, if he does 0ish to test the proposition that ID and race are correlated in a biologically causal 0ay he needs to test a different null hypothesis. /he proper null hypothesis 0ould state that there is no biological causal relationship bet0een ID and &e&bership in a biological population. /his null hypothesis has never been disproved. /o be absolutely clear let &e state this another 0ay. 'ny null hypothesis &ust deal 0ith real variables. Since I have already sho0n that biological race is a false category 3or false variable4, 7evinPs null hypothesis can neither be proved or disproved.

/he author fails to consider that one can have biologically causal differences bet0een non-biological 3scientific4 populations. In fact, this &ust be the case 0hen the heritability of a trait 0ithin a given population is highB in this situation, 0hich is :uite co&&on, the phenotypic differences observed bet0een arbitrarily defined non-biological subpopulations 0ill &ore li-ely than not have so&e hereditary basis since the phenotypic differences bet0een the individuals 0hich co&pose both the overall population and the subpopulations &ore li-ely than not do. 3#eaders are referred /al 3<>>?4 for a discussion of the relationship bet0een population heritability and the probability that an arbitrary individualEs phenotypic deviation fro& the population &ean is &ore genetically conditioned than notB the for&ulas provided can be e)tended to allo0 one to calculate the probability that an arbitrary bet0een sub-population difference is &ore genetically conditioned than not.4 'llandEs argu&ent is doubly strange because he 0ould undoubtedly agree that there is a biological basis to the average differences in s-in pig&entation bet0een the 8blac-,9 80hite,9 and 8!ispanic9 populations. 'nyone 0ho recogni,es differences in color &ust concede that a sociological understanding of race does not preclude genetic differences. /his author, and &any others, &a-e 0hat 0e &ight call the social construct fallacy, according to 0hich the social construction of groups so&eho0 i&plies that all group differences &ust be non-genetic in origin F as if groups could not be socially constructed around genetic differencesW 3Consider, again, the tall and the s&all.4 :c; 5ociological Race in the *nited 5tates In the *nited States, co&&only defined sociological races, such as 'sians, Caucasians, Blac-s, Native '&ericans, and Pacific Islanders 3see, e.g., the recent N'EP racial

classifications4, correspond so&e0hat 0ith historic continent-level biological racesB in this case, "ongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid, '&erindian and 'ustraloidQPacific Islander. /he correspondence isnEt perfectB for e)a&ple, the 'sian classification includes Caucasoid South 'sians, and the 'frican-'&erican population largely represents a hybrid Caucasoid-Negroid population, a population 0ith an ad&i)ture rate such that one &ight not consider the& to be Negroids in the 0ay that one probably 0ould consider "odern !u&ans 0ith a s&all a&ount of 'rchaic ad&i)ture to nonetheless be "odern !u&ans. 's for the sociological classification of !ispanics, this includes &e&bers of all continentlevel biological races in addition to &i)tures thereof. Insofar as !ispanics are descended fro& &i)ed-race populations, they could be treated, consistently 0ith evolutionary classifications, as their o0n biological race, as noted by Cro0 3<>><4. But since not all !ispanics are of &i)ed continental ancestry, it is probably better to understand the& as representing a substantially non-biological sociological cultural group. .bviously, as noted above, 0hether or not a sociological racialQethnicQcultural classification is better understood as a biological one says little about the etiology of phenotypic differences. +or e)a&ple, no one 0ould argue that &ean s-in color differences bet0een sociologically defined 2hites, !ispanics, and Blac-s in the *nited States are entirely non-genetic. /he sa&e should be true for other polygenic traits. In general, the utility of biological race in a sociological conte)t co&es fro& its ability to e)plain patterns of differences in gene fre:uencies bet0een sociological racesQethnosQcultures. +or e)a&ple, one 0ould e)plain the differences in s-in color bet0een 2hites, !ispanics, and 'frican '&ericans in part by noting that there are s-in color differences bet0een Caucasoids, '&erindians, and Negroids, and by noting that 2hites, !ispanics, and 'frican '&ericans differ in their Caucasoid, '&erindian, and Negroid ad&i)ture. III. The /ntolog" of Biological Race III-A. /ther #efenses of Biological Race In recent years, a nu&ber of biological or biologically grounded race concepts have been articulated and defended. Consistent 0ith historic usage, in these defenses, race is conceptuali,ed in ter&s of lineage, ancestry, historical filiation, or the li-e. Sailer 3;??K4 put forth a concept of a race as an inbred e)tended fa&ilyB by this concept, races represent different genealogical delineated populations. Si&ilarly, $itcher 3;???4 presented a concept of race as an inbred lineage. 7evin 3<>><4 and 'ndresean 3;??KB <>>>B <>>=B <>>@B <>>GB <>>H4 developed and defended cladistic conceptsB accordingly, races represent different clades. Building off of $itcher 3;???4, !ardi&on 3<>;<B <>;=4 educed and defended a genetic population conceptionB by this, races are endoga&ous biological lineages. Spencer 3<>;;4 presented an apologia for hu&an races as continental genetic &eta-populationB i&plied in this defense 0as a population lineage concept. 2oodley 3<>>?4 outlined a consolidated concept in 0hich biological races 0ere said to be C populations e)pressing a co&posite nu&ber of traits 0hose distributions intercorrelate

in such a 0ay so as to give rise to a particular, distinct correlative structureCB he noted that this i&plied a linage conceptB finally, Shiao et al. 3<>;<4 for&ulated a Cclinal classC concept 0hereby races represent Cclusters in hu&an genetic variationC or lu&py regions of a population continuu&B as races 0ere said to represent a C&easure&ent of ancestryC, again 0e are dealing 0ith a lineage concept. /hus, in all cases &entioned, races are understood to be natural biological populations. /hese conceptions, then, fall under the ordinary biological race concept. /he evolutionary race concept, as such, divaricates fro& so&e of these in i&portant respects --though, 0e agree 0ith 2oodley 3<>>?4 that conceptual differences largely co&e do0n to ones of Cdescriptive e&phasisC. /he race concept here for&ulated is deli&ited in a &ore rigorous fashion than that presented by Sailer 3;??K4B &oreover, the concept here presented, 0hich is a natural population concept, unli-e SailerEs 3;??K4, can be said to be a strictly biological scientific one -- that is, one used in the biological sciences. 's opposed to 2oodleyEs 3<>>?4, the descriptive e&phasis is not placed on specific trait correlations 3or clusters4, but rather on the cause of these correlations 3that is, on genotypic si&ilarity due to historical filiation4. Contrary to SpencerEs 3<>;;4, this concept doesnPt appertain to only a subclass of sub-specific natural populationsB instead, the concept is generic6 appropriate :ualifiers, such as CcontinentalC, are used to specify classes of races. *nli-e Shiao et al.Es 3<>;<4 Cclinal classC concept, a concept set in contrast to a vie0 of hu&an population structure as a pure continuu&, the evolutionary concept is not at odds 0ith a population continuu&B rather, it is 0ith a vie0 of biological races as artificial biological populationsB &ore specifically, a perfect population continuu& doesnPt preclude the e)istence of evolutionary racesB it apparently does Cclinal classesC. Based on their respective lineage-based concepts, both 7evin 3<>><4 and $itcher 3;???4 argued that races only e)ist if &i)ed-race populations are relatively s&allB 7evin 3<>><4 stated, for e)a&ple6 CNcontinentalO races e)ist so long as &ost individuals can trace their ancestry to one of a s&all nu&ber of continental clades9. /he logic leading to this conclusion eludes usB in any event, this conclusion doesnPt follo0 0hen it co&es to the evolutionary concept for the reasons discussed in sections I-G, II-$, II-7, and I -+ 3briefly6 races need only be &ore of less distinct in descent, hybrid races are per&issible, &i)ed and undifferentiated populations can be readily incorporated into a racial classification, races are, in an i&portant respect, te&porally specific, etc.4 The conce tion de.elo ed here also differs fro) -e.in :BCCB;<s cladistic conce t for so)e of the sa)e reasons that it differs fro) AndreseanDs :=>>E8 BCCC8 BCCF8 BCCG8 BCCH;. Andresean :BCCF; described her cladistic conce t thusl":
'ccording to the cladistic race concept, races are ancestor-descendant se:uences of breeding populations that share a co&&on origin. #ather than relying on sets of 0ell-deTned species, the branching structure used to deTne cladistic races 0ould be constructed out of hu&an Ubreeding populationsE. /he nodes in the tree 0ould represent breeding populations and the branches 0ould represent Uthe births of ne0 breeding populationsE.

+or starters, the evolutionary race concept follo0s the evolutionary classificatory approach, not the pedigree only cladistic one. 's such, by the for&er but not the latter concept, paraphyletic races are not proble&atic. "ore generally, 0ith the evolutionary

approach, populations are classified according to their Ctotal gene co&position 3"ayr, ;?AG4C, or geneotype, 0hich is a function of both descent and &odification. ItPs notable that 'ndresean 3;??K4 is dis&issive of evolutionary classifications and of 0hat she calls pheneticis&, by 0hich she &eans the practice of grouping entities by overall phenetic andQor genetic si&ilarity. !er position on Cpheneticis&C leads her to dis&iss the geographic race 3or ,oological subspecies4 concept as proble&atic. /his is not a place for a co&prehensive criti:ue of 'ndreseanPs position 3or of her interpretations e.g., of geographic race as a phenetic classification4B it 0ill Just be noted that her cladistic perspective, on account of being a cladistic one, contrasts 0ith the one ta-en in this article. 'nother disagree&ent arises as a result of 'ndreseanPs interpretation of the cladistic concept as applied to subspecific variation. !er reading so&eho0 leads her to conclude6
/hese data, in conJunction 0ith the fact that there has been reduced reproductive isolation in &ode& ti&es, indicate that races are fading out of e)istence. Ever since the voyages of discovery, coloni,ation and i&&igration have been blurring racial distinctness. /hus, if 0e focus on the synchronic :uestion-is there any Justification for dividing current populations into races-the ans0er &ay very 0ell be PnoP. 3'ndresean, ;??K4

'pparently, as her concept is for&ulated, even very lo0 levels of ad&i)ture lead to deracination, since such ad&i)ture blurs lineages, 0hich 'ndresean see&s to re:uire to be pure. 32ithout this re:uire&ent, 0e fail to see ho0 she could have derived her conclusion.4 's discussed in section I-G, there is no inconsistency bet0een lineage ad&i)ture and the e)istence of evolutionary races, as 0hat &atters is overall genetic si&ilarity, not lineage purityB as such, for e)a&ple, &odern hu&ans 0ith Neanderthal ad&i)ture 0ould still be understood to be Homo sapiens sapiens contra Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Given this understanding, 0hich is consistent 0ith conte&porary ,oological practices 3e.g., in regards to the for&al recognition of both hybrid species and hybrid races4, there can be no doubt that current populations can be dividing into nu&erous races. /here is, of course, nothing special about a genotypic versus genealogical based race concept that allo0s for lineage ad&i)tureB and this is 0hy 0e have trouble co&prehending 'ndreseanPs position. (ust as individuals can be &ore genotypically si&ilar to one population than to another, they can be &ore genealogically so. +or e)a&ple, a !ui-ren &ight have a ratio of one South 'sian to fifteen !an ancestorsB in pedigree, as in genotype, this !ui-ren 0ould be &ore related to !an. By virtue of pedigree collapse, due to lineage inbreeding, &ore of the !ui-renPs ancestry paths 0ould trace bac- to so&e one !an centuries prior than to so&e one South 'sian. In short, 'ndreseanPs position &a-es no sense to us -- unless, of course, co&plete pedigree purity is re:uired, a re:uire&ent 0hich is indefensible given co&&on conte&poraneous, &odern, and historic race concept for&ulations --0hether one defines race in ter&s of relative genealogical or in ter&s of relative genotypic si&ilarity. /here is one final point pertaining to the cladistPs versus evolutionary ta)ono&istPs conception. It &ight be as-ed if, relative to the cladistic perspective, our evolutionary one is &ore faithful to historic race conceptions. 2e consider it to be. 's it is, opponents of

biological race not infre:uently point out the &is&atch bet0een the cladistic concept and co&&on historic understandings. Sesardic 3<>;>4 noted this issue6
'gain, after Justifiably reJecting this vie0, "allon never goes bac- to loo- at so&e &ore viable versions of the biological race concept that 0ould be based on si&ilarity. 's a result, his overvie0 of different standpoints on race turns out to be seriously inco&plete6 the only biology-based concept of race that he discusses is the cladistic UUracial population naturalis&EE, 0hich does not include the clai& that races are genetically or &orphologically distinguishable fro& one another. So any si&ilarity-laden vie0 of race si&ply falls through the crac-s.

2e basically agree 0ith #on "allon and others that there is a &is&atch bet0een the cladistic concept and historic concepts, concepts 0hich often involved so&e sense of genetic-phenotypic si&ilarity along 0ith si&ilarity arising fro& &odification, not &erely pedigree. +or e)a&ple, $ant classified the '&erindian race as a "ongoloid sub-race, and not as a pri&ary race, because it 0as thought to have genealogically split off of the "ongoloid and because it 0as not, in his opinion, sufficiently differentiated in character. 2e could cite nu&erous si&ilar e)a&ples. 's such, 0e agree 0ith "allon that cladistic and historic race, li-e cladistic and historic species, concepts i&portantly differ. /he evolutionary ta)ono&ic one -- a for& of UUracial population naturalis&EE not considered by "allon -- doesnPt in this sa&e regard. Si&ilarity-laden vie0s of race donPt fall through ta)ono&ic crac-s -- or only do if one reJects the evolutionary perspective. +inally, 0e are left 0ith !ardi&onEs 3<>;<, <>;=4 conception in 0hich race is understood as Ca group of populations that e)hibit a distinctive pattern of genetically trans&itted phenotypic characters and that belongs to an endoga&ous biological lineage initiated by a geographically separated and reproductively isolated founding populationC. Putting aside 0hat follo0s the phrase Cinitiated byC, !ardi&onPs concept closely &irrors the one developed here 3one in 0hich geographic separation is sufficient but not necessary for the relative reproductive isolation 0hich induces racination4. 2e &ove a good deal beyond his for&ulation, though, by, a&ong other things, clarifying and tying together discrete set and fu,,y set conceptions of natural populations, shedding light on a nu&ber of &ur-y issues 3sections II-B to II-$4, and greatly e)panding the scope of discussion. /o approach this topic &ore generally, 0e list belo0 possible race conceptions. #aces, in general, are groups of individuals 0ho differ in pedigree. 2ith strictly non-biological concepts, &e&bers of one said race donPt, in fact, share &ore co&&on biological ancestry relative to &e&bers of others. +or e)a&ple, 0ere 0e to construct a !u&an South !e&ispherian #ace, 0hich included individuals 0hose ancestors predo&inately lived in the South !e&isphere bet0een ;>,>>> B.C. and ;G>> '.%., 0e 0ould not have constructed a biological scientific race of any sort but rather a non-biological race, since, relative to our North !e&ispherians, &any of our South !e&ispherians 0ould not share in co&&on &ore biological ancestry. /his e)a&ple illustrates the discordance bet0een geographical and biological ancestry and helps e)plain 0hy &ore conceptual precise population geneticists adopt the race euphe&is& Cbiogeographical ancestry groupsC and not Cgeographical ancestry groupsC. 2ith artificial biological concepts, our groups are differentiated in ter&s of biological ancestry, but not according to overall relatedness. !ypodescent defined races are a good e)a&ples of such artificial biological races. /hey

can, insofar as the defining genealogies are accurate, be said to be no less biological than types or for&sB yet the groups described are fre:uently not natural in the biological sense of describing overall genetic 3genealogical or genotypic4 relatedness. 2ith natural biological races, our groups of individuals are differentiated in ter&s of overall biological relatedness. 2hen lines of descent are sufficiently endogenous, that is, 0hen our e)tended fa&ilies are sufficiently inbred, natural biological races e&erge fro& artificial. /hese natural races have five di&ensions6 lines of descent, endogenous breeding patterns, environ&ental adaptations, genotypic si&ilarity, and phenotypic si&ilarity. %ifferent biological research progra&s varyingly e&phasi,e, so&eti&es to the neglect of others, the different di&ensions of the underlying pheno&enon e.g., cladistics and pedigree, evolutionary ta)ono&y and genotypic si&ilarity, population genetics and breeding patterns, ecology and ecological adaptations, and biological anthropology and phenotypic si&ilarity. !ere 0e discuss natural biological race and discuss it fro& an evolutionistPs genotypic perspectiveB other di&ensions, naturally enough, are i&plied.

III-B. Biological Races0 Biological Realit"0 and 5ocial Constructs Not infre:uently is it professed that races have been discovered to be CunrealCB in a <>;= Ne0 5or- /i&es editorial, (ustin S&ith, for instance. avers6
Since the &id-<>th century no &ainstrea& scientist has considered race a biologically significant categoryB no scientist believes any longer that 8negroid,9 8caucasoid9 and so on represent real natural -inds or categories. 3S&ith, <>;;4

By this narrative, once-upon-a-ti&e races 0ere thought to represent Creal natural -indsC, but their reality later turned out to be phantas&al. In actuality, close to the opposite occurred. 's noted in section II-%, &any biologists of the ;A>> to ;K>>s, follo0ing 'ristotle t0o &illennia prior, 0ere species realists. Species realis& typically involved a belief in so&e type of species e)tra-&entalis&, per&anency, and essentialis&B all three positions 0ent hand in hand in and together constituted species realis& broadly understood. By this understanding6 species 0ere thought to have essences or for&al natures 0hich defined species &e&bership and 0hich precluded species fro& evolvingB it 0as on the grounds of having such for&al natures that species 0ere said to be e)tra-&entally real biological divisions in the 0ay that higher ta)a 0ere not. 's Sta&os 3<>>A4 and other have pointed out, the &aJority of ;Hth- to ;?th-century thin-ers 0ere not realists 0ith respect to higher ta)a 3e.g., classes or orders4. #ather, they 0ere no&inalists. Sta&os 3<>>A4 notes6
%ar0in 3;KG?4 0ould shortly after0ard second this Judg&ent, not only 0hen he says 8Several of the best botanists, such as "r. Bentha& and others, have strongly insisted on their Nhigher ta)a fro& genera to ordersO arbitrary value9 3@;?4, but especially 0hen he infor&s us that &any naturalists 8ad&it that genera are &erely artiTcial co&binations &ade for convenience9 3@GA4. If 3assu&ing it is safe to say4 the great &aJority of pre-%ar0inian naturalists and ta)ono&ists did not believe that higher ta)a are real, then 0hy did they even bother to group species into higher ta)a1 /he ans0er is because of practical necessity. 's Stevens 3;??@4 puts it, 8it should not be forgotten that all naturalists had to describe groups, 0hatever their opinion of their ontological status9 3@A<4.

Sta&os 3<>>A4 could also have noted, but did not, that no&inalis& reigned too 0hen it ca&e to subspecific groupings. /his is 0hy, for e)a&ple, Blu&enbach described his hu&an varieties as Carbitrary -inds of divisions9. 7et us e)pound upon this point so&e &ore. 's 0e said, species realis& typically involved the notion that that species had for&al natures of a type 0hich so&eho0 conditioned inter-generational consistency of for&. In 'rinciples o! -eology, Charles 7yell, for e)a&ple, ta-es up the issue of Crealis&C, that of, C0hether species have a real or per&anent e)istence in natureB or 0hether they are capable as so&e naturalists pretend, of being indefinitely &odified in the course of a long series of generationsC. Needless to say, follo0ing %ar0inPs evolutionary revolution, species realis& so conceptuali,ed fell out of favor. Evolutionary theory refuted the notion of species per&anenceB this refutation, in turn, under&ined the idea of for&al natures 0hich regulated for&s across generationsB this under&ining, then, called into :uestion the e)tra-&ental reality of species. In a sense, then, it is true that fe0 to no &ainstrea& scientists presently consider race or any other natural groupings to represent real, in the species realistPs sense, natural -indsB as such, fe0 to no biologists currently believe that Chu&ansC and ChorsesC and so on represent e)tra-&ental, per&anent, and essentialist entities. 5et fe0 to no realists of the ;Hth to ;?th centuries endorsed subspecific realis& in the first place. In .undamenta /otanica 3;H=H, :uoted in Sta&os, <>>A4, 7innaeus characteri,ed the &etaphysics of the syste&atics of his day, thusly6 8Nature &a-es species and genus, culture &a-es varieties, art and nature &a-es classes and orders.9 't this ti&e, sub-specific variation 0as fre:uently chal-ed up to degenerative environ&ental factors since for&al natures 0ere

seen as species 3and so&eti&es genus4 level properties. /hese 0ere later ter&ed Cconstant varietiesC, varieties 0hich retained their peculiar for&s even 0hen reared in ho&ogenous environ&ents and 0hich propagated these peculiarities across generations. But there character 0as seen as so&e0hat of a &ystery 3%oron, <>;<4. In 0ritica botanica 3;H=H, :uoted in "^ller-2ille, <>><4, 7innaeus, for e)a&ple, pu,,led6 82ho 0ould deny that the Ethiopian is of the sa&e species as 0e hu&ans ... and yet the Ethiopian brings forth blac- children in our countries.C !e 0as pu,,led because Ethiopians 0ere recogni,ed as a variety of the hu&an species, because varieties, being varieties, 0ere not understood to have species-li-e for&al natures, and because it 0as species-li-e for&al natures 0hich 0ere thought to condition intergenerational consistency. Polygenists, 0ho conceived of hu&an races as hu&an species, had great fun 0ith this proble&. If not different species, 0hence the hereditary nature of differences bet0een hu&an populations1 If because populations represent Cconstant varietiesC, ho0 does one &a-e sense of such an o)y&oronic category1 /he &onogenist Buffon 3;HH?4 0as able to respond. !e conceptuali,ed species as a Cphysical net0or-s of historical filiationC 3Sloan, ;?H?4 and, in turn, he conceptuali,ed constant varieties as subspecific lineages. !e tells us6 CNIOn ani&al species, races are si&ply constant varieties that propagate through generationsCB he also noted6 C/he ger& of blac-ness is trans&itted to children by their fathers and &others so that in any country 0here a Negro &ay be born, he 0ill be as blac- as if he 0ere born in his o0n countryC. !e introduced the concept of race, 0hich, at the ti&e, referred to both noble lineages and to ani&al breeds, to account for the peculiarity of relatively constant varieties. /o e)plain the heritable differences bet0een races, given their lac- of for&al natures, he proposed that environ&ental factors left i&prints on different sub specific genealogical lines -- an idea not too dissi&ilar to the &odern one of epigenetics. 'ccordingly, ani&al races 0ere said to be sub-specific groups of individuals 0hich shared relatively constant patterns of traits, o0ing to the i&print 0hich the environ&ent, acting long across generations, left on their lineage. 7i-e 7innaeus, Buffon, then, didnPt consider hu&an varieties :ua varieties to have species-li-e for&al natures. /hey could not as the varieties descended fro& a co&&on stoc-. +or this sa&e reason, they 0ere neither seen as per&anent nor e)tra&ental divisions of reality. /his pattern repeats itself 0ith other racial theorists 3that is, theorist 0ho conceptuali,ed hu&an populations as being varieties, races, or so&e other type of sub specific grouping4. +or e)a&ple, in C.n the *se of /eleological Principles in Philosophy 3;HKK4C, $ant, a &onogenist li-e &ost other 0ell--no0n racial theorists, distinguishes bet0een CracesC and CvarietiesC as he defined the&. By his understanding, varieties characteri,ed populations 0hose trait differences 0ere failingly hereditary, that is, 0hich did not inde) population ad&i)tureB $ant gave the e)a&ple of blonds and brunettes. #aces, on the other hand, characteri,e populations 0hose trait differences 0ere unfailingly hereditary. #egarding the latter, $ant gave the e)a&ple of s-in color in conte)t to gypsies and old Europeans. !e notes6 CNo0 0e possess a decisive e)a&ple of the latter in the Indian s-in color of a s&all people that has been propagating itself fro& so&e centuries in our Northern countries, na&ely the gypsies... +or they beget unfailingly half-breed children

0ith our old natives, to 0hich la0 the race of the 0hites is not subJect 0ith regards to any characteristic varieties.C !e 0ent onto distinguish thusly bet0een races and species6
7i-e0ise, the race or subspecies is an unfailing hereditary peculiarity 0hich Justifies the division into classes but yet does not 0arrant the division into -inds, since the unfailing half-breed regeneration 3hence &elting together of the differential characters4 does not yet preclude to vie0 their inherited differences as originally unified differences as originally unified in their phylu& in &ore predispositions and as developed and separated only gradually in procreation. +or one cannot turn a fa&ily of ani&als into a special -ind if it belongs 0ith another one to one and the sa&e syste& of generation of nature. 3$ant, ;HKK4

2e are told6 species and races differ in that species canPt evolveB the hereditary differences bet0een races donPt evidence different species, because these hu&an groups could have evolved fro& the sa&e stoc-. 3$ant postulated 0hat 0e 0ould recogni,e as 7a&arc-ian &icro-evolution.4 'gain, for $ant, as 0ith others, races 0ere not seen as real in the sense discussed above. $ant, nonetheless, understood races to be natural divisions. +or e)a&ple, in C.n the different !u&an #aces 3;HHH4C he tells us6 C'n artificial division is based upon classes and divided things up according to si&ilarities, but a natural division is based upon identifying distinct lines of descent according to reproductive relations.C !e then 0ent onto describe races in general as being natural as opposed to artificial divisions. !ere 0e observe the beginning of an i&portant &eaning shift. /he &eaning of CnaturalC &orphed fro& a species realist one involving species-li-e for&al natures to a genealogical one. /his allo0ed $ant, unli-e Blu&enbach, to recogni,e races as representing natural divisions 0hile at the sa&e ti&e not recogni,ing the& as different Cnatural -indsC 3or species4 S that is, $ant did not believe races had syste&s of generation 3syste&s 0hich constrain evolution and prevent species fro& trans&uting into other -inds4. #eturning to our &ain point, one cannot say that the unreality of races 0as uncovered. .ne &ight say that races 0ere discovered to not be species as &aintained by polygenists, but polygenists 0ere a heretical &inority and, &oreover, the species of both polygenists and &onogenists 0ere discovered to be unreal any0ays -- that is, to paraphrase %ar0in, to be Just a variety of varieties. /his last point is i&portant. Post-%ar0in, species and genus 0ere, in a sense, ontologically de&oted. /he result is that all lineage seg&ents are no0 conceived of as unreal in the species realist sense, and hence not Creal natural -indsC understood in this 0ay 3e.g., Sober, ;?K>4 as pertaining to 'ristotelian biological essentialis&4. 't the sa&e ti&e, though what it is to be biologically natural 0as reconceptuali,ed in a genealogical sense 0ithout the Cnatural -indC presu&ptionsB hence6 Cbiological natural populationsC. 2e sa0 the beginning of this &eaning transfor&ation in $ant. 2e see it play out in %ar0inPs 0riting. %ar0in stated that species both are and are not arbitrary groupings. .n the one hand, 0e are told6
+ro& these re&ar-s it 0ill be seen that I loo- at the ter& species, as one arbitrarily given for the sa-e of convenience to a set of individuals closely rese&bling each other, and that it does not essentially differ fro& the ter& variety, 0hich is given to less distinct and &ore fluctuating for&s. /he ter& variety, again, in co&parison 0ith &ere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for &ere convenience sa-e. 3%ar0in, ;KG?4

5et, on the other6

UfOro& the first da0n of life, all organic beings are found to rese&ble each other in descending degrees, so that they can be classed in groups under groups. /his classification is evidently not arbitrary li-e the grouping of the stars in constellations. 3%ar0in, ;KG?4

+or %ar0in, species li-e sub-specific varieties are arbitrary in that they do not carve out real or natural divisions in the sense of real or natural as &eant by 7innaeus 0hen he said that PNature &a-es species and genusP. /hey are, nonetheless, natural in the sense &eant by $ant and current thin-ers. /he upshot is that races can no0 be said to represent natural biological divisions of the sa&e order of reality -- or unreality, &eaning depending -- as represented by species. #elatively spea-ing, then, the ta)ono&ic status of CNegroid,9 8Caucasoid9 and so has &oved up :uite a bit since the age of the Enlighten&ent. /o be clear, so&e still currently use the ter& Cbiologically realC to &ean C&ind independentC. /hose 0ho do often donPt reali,e the historically close tie bet0een the idea of C&ind independentC and that of species per&anency. /hat is, they donPt grasp the &eaning shift. Since the &eaning of Cbiologically realC changes over ti&e, 0hat CrealC once generally &eant does not necessarily correspond 0ith 0hat it does no0 or 0ill in the future. Giving the shifting nature of understandings, consistency of usage and e)plicitness of &eaning is necessary for coherence. If one proclai&s that Craces are unrealC 0here CunrealC is used in the archaic sense of per&anent or e)tra-&ental, one should &a-e onePs &eaning clear. In section I-(, 0e have defined Cbiologically realC in a si&ple co&&onsense &anner that allo0s us to &a-e true clai&s such as Cde&es are realC. 2e didnPt favor other &ore &etaphysical understandings because 0e 0ished to define CrealityC in a &etaphysically neutral and strictly biological scientific &annerB our 8biological reality is not so&e sense of &etaphysical reality applied to biological entitiesB it is 8real9 as conceptuali,ed in the conte)t of biology as a research progra&. /his said, 0e are not opposed, per se, to other conceptions of 0hat-it-is-to-be-biologically-real. If one 0ishes to define Cbiological realityC in other &anners, fair enough. But the definition should be applied consistently. 'nd e)a&ples of 0hich biological things are and are not said to be real should be offered for conte)t. Per our definitions in Section I, the evolutionary race concept is a biological concept 0hich 3a4 is biologically validB 3b4 is biologically &eaningful in both the broad and narro0 sensesB 3c4 represents a biological -indB 3d4 describes natural biological populationsB and 3e4 has a strong clai& to the ter& 8race9. 'dditionally, 3f4 there are biologically real hu&an races in the co&&onsense sense of biologically real. /o this it can be added6 so&e evolutionary race classi!ications are biologically obJective 3as defined in section II-%4 in the sense that these delineations can be &ade, to the e)tent possible, on the basis of biological or genetic data alone. .f course, one could define 8valid9, C&eaningfulC, 8biological -indsC, 8natural biological populations9, CrealC and 8biologically obJective9 in other 0ays. Preferably, the definitions should allo0 one to &a-e sensible state&ents such as 8forests are ecologically real,9 or 8a breeding population, the basic unit of evolution, is a biologically &eaningful concept.9 /hat is,

oneEs ontology of biology should be coherent and sensible -- li-e ours. 't very least, ter&s should be consistently applied. 's a final note, 0hether and to 0hat e)tent natural populations or any other biological entities are 8social constructs9 hinges on definition. Since a Csocial constructC, as typically defined in philosophy, is the converse of a Cnatural -indC and since there is little agree&ent as to 0hat constitutes the latter, there &ust be little agree&ent as to 0hat constitutes the for&er. In section I, 0e esche0ed discussion of Cnatural -indsC on account of this dearth of agree&entB for the sa&e reason, 0e 0ill do li-e0ise 0ith the nebulous ter& Csocial constructC. III-C. Tilting against what1 /o give readers a sense of the -inds of argu&ents 0hich 0e are atte&pting to address 0ith the preceding discussions, 0e 0ill cite a clever e)position of the contrary position. Su&&ari,ing Glasgo0Ps argu&ent, $aplan 3<>;;4 infor&s us6
N'ccording to Glasgo0Ps argu&ent,O NsOince 3a&ong other reasons4 there is no non- arbitrary 0ay of identifying biological populations that could successfully pic- out the UracesE privileged in foldiscourse as biological entities 0orthy of special attention, UracesE are not biological entities.... !e argues that 8race9 3the ter&4 cannot refer to a socially constructed entity because the &eaning of the ter& 8race9 includes that the entity in :uestion not be socially constructed, but rather be biological. So, Glasgo0 concludes, UracesE donEt e)ist S the concept #'CE does not in fact refer to anything in the 0orld.

/he argu&ent &entioned, especially regarding the de&and for Centities worthy o! special attention1, is oddly typical 3e.g., !off&an, <>;=4. /he proble&6 either Glasgo0 re:uires biological entities to be Cworthy o! special attentionC 3a4 in the purely subJective sense of 0orthy to himsel! or 3b4 in the obJective sense of 0orthy in themselves or 3c4 in the relative sense of 0orthy to biologists given some research program. If 3a4, it difficult to see 0hy Glasgo0Ps, or anyone elsePs, subJective feelings should define 0hat constitutes biological realityB if 3c4, 0hether or not this or that biological race concept is found to be &eaningful by biologists is an e&pirical :uestionB our revie0 of the literature indicates that the race concept outlined here along 0ith biological race concepts in general are thought to be &eaningful 3see6 section I -B in particular4. +inally, if 3b4, by the sa&e logic &any very biological things turn out to be non-biological, for e)a&ple, all biological ta)a :ua ta)a, since none of these have intrinsic 0orth of recognition, 0hether by this 0e &ean that they are really valuable or that they have a &ind independent e)istence. Concerning ta)a, Si&pson 3;?A;4 correctly noted that the use of ta)ono&ic levels is as Carbitrary Nin the sense of not &ind independentO convention. It doesnPt correspond 0ith anything in nature but is an artifice i&posed by practical necessity in the use of any hierarchyC. /here are, of course, phylogenic relationsB and there are differences in degrees of relatedness bet0een groupingsB but nothing in nature de&ands the recognition of any specific ta)on such as CspeciesC. Since 0e are not disposed to feud over 0ords, 0e offer the follo0ing :ualified counterposition6 biological races, here defined, are both Creal9 and 8unrealC, 8valid9 and 8invalid9, C&eaningful9 and 8&eaninglessC, 8biological -inds9 and 8biological

constructsC in the 0ay that -ingdo&s, species, ecologies, and character clines are. /o better &a-e sense of the issue, it 0ould be helpful if, in the future, biological race antirealists offered e)a&ples of the types of biological things that, by their understanding, are CreallyC biological real. By the understandings presented here, biological race is biologically real in the 0ay that giraffes, local populations, ecosyste&s, $Rppen cli&atic ,ones, &acro&olecules, organs, and habitats are. .n the other hand, they are not biologically real in the 0ay that species and genus4 0ere once thought to be. $aplan 3<>;;4 continues6
!ere is a rough su&&ary of the &ain lines of argu&ent against the biological reality of race6 ;4 hu&ans are not terribly diverse, either phenotypically or genetically, so further sub-dividing us into even &ore ho&ogeneous categories &a-es little sense 3the 8to a first appro)i&ation, 0eEre all pretty &uch the sa&e9 argu&ent S see e.g. S&edley and S&edley <>>G and cites therein4, <4 0hat little e)tant variation there is, both phenotypic and genetic, 0ithin any given sub-population of hu&ans is &uch &uch greater than the average differences bet0een populations 3the 8&ost variation is 0ithin and not bet0een populations9 argu&ent S see e.g. 7e0ontin ;?H<4, =4 the populations 0e identify as UracesE in conte&porary social discourse do not &ap neatly onto any legiti&ate biological populations 3the 8&is&atch9 argu&ent S see e.g. #oot <>>=4, @4 the variation that 0e happen focus on does not pic- out uni:uely distinct populations 0ith respect to the total variation available 3the 8arbitrariness9 obJection S see e.g. 2eiss and +ullerton <>>G 4, and finally G4 0hat 0as &eant by 8race is biological9 0as a strong essentialist clai& that 0e no0 -no0 to be false, not Just of hu&an populations, but indeed of &ost biologically respectable populations 3'ppiahEs 8detritus9 argu&ent S see 'ppiah ;??@ and related4.

7atter on in section I -(, it 0ill be sho0n that points 3;4 to 3<4 are proble&atic, at least 0hen Cterribly diverseC is interpreted to &ean practically significant, given typical interpretations of effect si,es. Point 3=4 0as discussed in section II-"B generally, 0hether certain sociological race classifications &ap onto biological races is an issue distinct fro& that of 0hether biological races e)ist. /o address the first issue, it is necessary to clarify 0hat biological races are in the first place. 2ith respect to 3@4, as races carve out natural and not arbitrary populations, there is an i&portant sense in 0hich races are not arbitraryB but is it even sensible to say that artificial biological populations e.g., &orphs are not biologically real1 "oreover is it sensible to conceptuali,e Cbiologically realityC such that uni:ue distinctiveness is re:uired1 !o0 does one applying this re:uire&ent to other pheno&ena1 %o real &etabolic processes also need to be Cuni:uely distinctC1 Is the $rebs Cycle really distinct enough fro& stage < Glycolysis to be real in the &olecular biological sense1 Point 3G4 is the real ge& here. 'ppiah 3;?KGB ;??@4 defined Cracialis&C to &ean the belief that6 UUthat there are heritable characteristics, possessed by &e&bers of our species, that allo0 us to divide hu&an beings into a s&all set of races, in such a 0ay that all the &e&bers of these races share certain traits and tendencies 0ith each other that they do not share 0ith &e&bers of any other raceC. !e clai&s6 C#acialis& is at the heart of nineteenth century atte&pts to develop a science of racial differenceC. No te)tural evidence is presented. Nonetheless, $aplan 3<>;;4 and others transfor&s 'ppiah 3;?KGB ;??@4Ps definition or racialis& into /he, 0ith a capital /, historic definition of biological race. /his supposed historic definition is then 0or-ed into an i&plied argu&ent 0hich runs6 Since races, as historically understood, clearly donPt e)ist, races donPt, since 0e

&ust be faithful to our historic understanding. /his, of course, 0ould be e:uivalent to absurdly arguing that ato&s donPt physically e)ist since ato&s once referred to indivisible ele&ents -- it 0ould, 0ere races historically understood 3in the ;H>>-;?>>s4 to be strongly essentialist. But 0ere they1 /his issue 0as adressed above, but &ore can be said. Belo0 is ho0 (ohann Blu&enbach, often said to be a father racial science, characteri,es hu&an varieties in his fa&ous On the 2atural 3ariety o! *an&ind 3;H?G46
K;. .ive principal varieties o! man&ind may be rec&oned% As0 howe.er0 e.en a)ong these arbitrar" 7inds of di.isions0 one is said to be better and referable to another8 after a long and attenti.e consideration0 all )an7ind0 as far as it is at resent 7nown to us0 see)s to )e as if it )a" best0 according to natural truth0 be di.ided into the fi.e following .arieties . K<. 0haracters and limits o! these varieties% In the follo0ing notes and descriptions these five varieties &ust be generally defined. /o this enu&eration, ho0ever, I &ust prefi) a double 0arningB first0 that on account of the )ultifarious di.ersit" of the characters0 according to their degrees0 one or two alone are not sufficient0 but we )ust ta7e se.eral 4oined together8 and then that this union of characters is not so constant but what it is liable to innu)erable exce tions in all and singular of these .arieties. ?>. 0onclusion. Thus too there is with this that insensible transition b" which as we saw the other .arieties also run together N.O NE&phasis addedO

2e are told6 hu&an varieties represent &etaphysically arbitrary divisionsB &e&bers can not be distinguished by single charactersB using &ultiple characters still results in numerous exceptionsB hu&an varieties !low into one other. ItPs beyond the scope of this essay to revie0 in detail all archaic for&ulations of the race concept. It 0ill si&ply be noted that 'ppiahPs definition of racialis& doesnPt characteri,e the typical biological historic raceQvariety concept. .f course, he never clai&ed that it did. $aplan 3<>;;4 and supporters could still &a-e their argu&ent si&ply by referencing the historic &eaning of CrealC. #aces surely arenPt real, in this sense. But, of course, fra&ing the argu&ent thusly 0ould give up the ga&e. /his line of investigation, concerning the supposed historic race concepts, &ust be pursued further, as historical -conte&porary &eaning &is&atch argu&ents continually pop up. Concerning, the purported historic understanding, the <>;; version of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on race states6
/he concept of race has historically signified the division of hu&anity into a s&all nu&ber of groups based upon five criteria6 3;4 #aces reflect so&e type of biological foundation, be it Aristotelian essences or )odern genesB 3<4 /his biological foundation generates discrete racial grou ings0 such that all and onl" all )e)bers of one race share a set of biological characteristics that are not shared b" )e)bers of other races .... /his historical concept of race has faced substantial scientific and philosophical challenge, 0ith so&e i&portant thin-ers denying both the logical coherence of the concept and the very e)istence of races. .thers defend the concept of race, albeit with substantial changes to the foundations of racial identit", 0hich they depict as either socially constructed or, if biologically grounded, neither discrete nor essentialist0 as the historical conce t would ha.e it. 3(a&es, <>;<B e&phasis added4

3for the unrevised <>>K version see6 http6QQisteve.blogspot.co&Q<>;>Q>HQstanfordencyclopedia-of-philosophy-on.ht&l4

2e are told -- a&ong other things -- that the idea of race involved so&ething 0hich allo0s for discrete groupings6 either 'ristotelian essences or a set of biological characters uni:ue to all &e&bers of each race. 5et 0e have already seen that races 0ere not historically held to have 'ristotelian essencesB &oreover, 0e have noted that the latter vie0 0as not typical. +or e)a&ple, in, C.n the *se of /eleological Principles in PhilosophyC, 0here he clarifies various points and defends his use of s-in color, $ant 0rote6
CN/Ohe difference of the races is not Judged by 0hat is sa&e in the& but 0hat is different in the&. NIf 'byssinian 0ere congenitally deep bro0n in colorO NaOll one could sa" would be that there are also dee brown races that differ fro) the Negro or his h"letic origination in other marks :e.g.0 the bone structure;. (or it would onl" be with res ect to the latter that the generation would result in a blend and )" list of colors would )erel" be increased b" one ..... /herefore the proJected e)peri&ent proved nothing against the fitness of the necessarily hereditary s-in color for a differentiation of the races. NE&phasis addedO

Clearly $ant didnPt re:uire a set of traits in 0hich races differ fro& every other in all traits, but Just as in ,oology, a set of traits 0hich ta-en together allo0s one to diagnose each and every race. $ant &ight have thought, as a conse:uences of so&e of his other vie0s, that every &e&ber of every race possessed the racial diagnostic traits -- he is not clear on this &atterB he clearly recogni,ed subracial variety since he recogni,es subraces and regional stoc-s, and since he even speculates about fa&ily stoc-s. #egardless, since he postulated a phylogenic concept of race, the issue is superfluous 0ith regards to his concept, since the diagnostic traits differentiate the races but do not define their nature. /o e)pose the vacuousness of these clai&s, 0e &ust e)a&ine closer the idea of 'ristotelian and biological essences. /his 0ill be done n the ne)t section. III-#. +ea7 Biological Essentialis) /he topic of Cbiological essentialis&C is confusing due to the nu&erous accounts of 0hat this position entails and 0ho the dreaded essentialists areB in sociology, so&e go so far as to e:uate the position 0ith genetic deter&inis& or even 0ith hereditarianis& 30here hereditary is used in (ay 7ushPs sense of additive genetic influence4. 's an e)a&ple of the latter, in their C%ictionary of "edia and Co&&unicationC, Chandler and "unday 3<>;;4 define Biological essentialis& as6
/he belief that Phu&an natureP, an individualPs personality, or so&e specific :uality 3such as intelligence, creativity, ho&ose)uality, C&asculinityC, Cfe&ininityC, or a &ale propensity for aggression4 is an innate and natural PessenceP 3rather than a product of circu&stances, upbringing, and culture4.

/hey go onto note that the concept is used synony&ously 0ith Cbiological deter&inis&C, 0hich, by their definition, is, in turn, synony&ous 0ith hereditarianis&. In &ore rigorous discourse, biological essentialis& refers to so&ething elseB though, 0hat precisely is not 0ithout a&biguity. 2hatever it is, as %evitt 3<>>K4 notes, there is a consensus against it. %evitt 3<>>K4 avers6

Indeed, .-asha clai&s that 8biologists and philosophers of biology typically regard essentialis& about species as inco&patible 0ith &odern %ar0inian theory9 3<>><, ;?;4. 'nd (ohn %upre clai&s that 8it is 0idely recogni,ed that %ar0inEs theory of evolution rendered untenable the classical essentialist conception of species9 3;???, =4. 'le) #osenberg says6 8/he proponents of conte&porary species definitions are all agreed that species have no essence9 3;?KG, <>=4. "ohan "atthen clai&s that 8species . . . are associated 0ith no nonrelational real essence9 3;??K,;;G4.

2hat is being repudiated1 "ayr 3;?G?4 reJected Cbiological essentialis&C in the sense that Cthere area li&ited nu&ber of fi)ed, unchangeable UideasE underlying the observed variability, 0ith the eidos 3idea4 being the only thing that is fi)ed and realCB as he understood the position, Cbiological essentialis&C entailed a belief in ta)on fi)ity. Sterelny and Griffiths 3;???4 reJected it in the sense that there are Cintrinsic genotypic or phenotypic property that are Cessential to being a &e&ber of a speciesCB as they understood the position, Cbiological essentialis&C entailed a belief in specific character unifor&ity. Sober 3;?K>4, though, argued that neither classificatory fi)ity nor character unifor&ity is essential to essentialis&. !e noted that even 'ristotle, 0ho &ost rigorously developed the position, didnPt re:uire character unifor&ityB 'ristotle allo0ed for blurry boundaries bet0een organis&s -- hence 'ristotle 0rote that6 C%%% nature proceeds little by little !rom inanimate things to living creatures, in such a way that we are unable, in the continuous se4uence to determine the boundary line between them or to say which side an intermediate &ind !alls ""+ristotle, 4uoted in 5ober "1,67#1; &oreover, 'ristotle allo0ed for &onstrous ta)on &e&bers, &e&bers 0hich deviated in character fro& the nor&s of the ta)on fro& 0hich they descended. 's for the classificatory fi)ity, Sober 3;?K>4 proffered that &any pre-%ar0inian essentialists didnPt re:uire this. 2e find this to be a dubious clai&B and Sober provided no evidence for this position. Sober 3;?K>4 goes on to characteri,e biological essentialis& in the follo0ing &anner6
/he essentialist hypothesi,es that there e)ists so&e characteristic uni:ue to and shared by all &e&bers of !o&o sapiens 0hich e)plains 0hy they are the 0ay they are. ' species essence 0ill be a causal &echanis& 0hich 0or-s on each &e&ber of the species, &a-ing it the -ind of thing that it is.

's Sober 3;?K>4 sees it, the CcharactersC referred to are not specific phenetic or genetic characters. /hey are underlying natures 0hich cause individual rese&blance in specific characters. Sober 3;?K>4 goes onto reJect biological essentialis& on the grounds that species donPt have regulatory natures, or at least that the hypothesis that they do 0as rendered superfluous by evolutionary theory. $een readers 0ill note that above 0e already clarified the biological essentialistic position in our discussion of species realis&. Species realis& held that ta)a had for&al natures 0hich gave &e&bers their species specific characters and 0hich in so&e 0ay &aintained species for&s across generationsB these natures gave species e)tra-&ental reality. /o clear up &atters 0e 0ill refor&ulate the various for&ulations of essentialis&. /o do this, 0e 0ill dra0 a t0ofold distinction. .n the one hand, 0e Ju)tapose 0hat can be called Ccharacter essentialis&C 0ith 0hat can be called Cnature essentialis&C. By Ccharacter essentialis&C 0e &ean the vie0 that organis&s of a natural population have specific or individual defining genetic or phenetic characteristic e.g., they all have purple

noses. /hese characters are non causalB they can account for 0hy organis&s are grouped in a set but not for 0hy the organis&s have the specific characters 0hich they do. /hey could be said to be accidental in a sense. /his is the for&ulation of essentialis& that Sta&os 3<>>A4 sees as proble&atic 0hen he notes6
/he proble& 0ith &ere character essentialis& is that there is nothing to distinguish any character fro& Just happening to be co&&on fro& one that is necessarily co&&on. In other 0ords there is no real distinction bet0een essential and accidental characters.

In contrast to character essentialis&, by Cnature essentialis&C organis&s of natural populations have a for&al nature as &over 0hich both defines &e&bership and 0hich causes the &e&bers to have the phenetic characters 0hich they tend to have. By our reading, this 0as the historic position. 2e can further divide Cnature essentialis&C into Cta)ono&ic nature essentialis&C and Ce)planatory nature essentialis&C. 'ccordingly, Cta)ono&ic nature essentialis&C purports to e)plain 0hy the natures of natural populations, at least on the ta)a levels of species and so&eti&es above, is Cfi)edC and CunchangeableCB this type of natural essentialis& entailed that species have 0hat 0e called in section III-B 8regulatory for&al natures9. .n the other hand, Ce)planatory nature essentialis&C e)plains 0hy individuals belong to the populations 0hich they do and 0hy they tend to &anifest their particular characters. In his criti:ue of E&pedoclesE vie0, 'ristotle &ade e)plicit his Ce)planatory nature essentialis&C in his 'arts o! the +nimal% Duote6
/hat is 0hy E&pedocles 0as 0rong to say that &any things belong to ani&als because they ca& about coincidentally in the course of the ani&alPs co&ing to be. !e says, for instance, that the bac-bone has vertebrrae because of the coincidence that the foetus got t0isted and the bac-bone 0as bro-en. !e did not -no0, first, that the seed resulting in the ani&al &ust already have the right potentiality, and, secondly, that the producer is prior in ti&e as 0ell as in account -- for a hu&an being generates a hu&an being, so that the character of the parent e)plains the 0ay in 0hich the offspring co&es to be. ...!ence the best thing to say is that since being a hu&an being is this, this is 0hy he has these parts, since it is i&possible for hi& to be 0ithout these parts....'nd these _&eans to the endX follo0s6 since this is the character of the product, it is necessary for the co&ing to be to have this character and to happen in this 0ay -- that is 0hy first this part co&es to be, and then this part.

!ere, character in this passage refers to our nature. %espite citing 'ristotle, it 0ill be noted that the distinctions 0e dra0 above donPt s&oothly fit onto 'ristotePs &etaphysical delineations. Generally, &uch of the debate about biological essentialis& underappreciates the co&ple)ity of the historic essentialist positions. Since 0e are trying to situate our discussion in conte)t to conte&porary debates on essentialis& and since these debates often crudely characteri,e the classic positions, 0e canPt carve the ter&inology such that they can perfectly elucidate the classic positions 0hile yet at the sa&e ti&e &a-e good sense of conte&porary discussions. 'ristotle, for e)a&ple, distinguished bet0een t0o types of !ormal nature 3he -ata to eidos physis46 !ormal nature as end, or telos, 0hich appro)i&ates 0hat &odern biologists call phenotypeB and !ormal nature as mover, or &inousa, 0hich appro)i&ates 0hat &odern biologists call genotype 3!enery, <>>A4, /hese t0o for&s of eidos physis 0ere presented in a pac-age such that they are not easily separated. #oughly, though, 'ristotlePs for&al nature as end is si&ilar to our character in character essentialis&. !is for&al nature Cas &overC is

si&ilar to our natural essentialis& insofar as it e)plains 0hy offspring rese&ble parents 3e)cept in the case of &onstrosities4. ' -ey difference bet0een our delineations and 'ristotlePs is that 0e subdivide our natural essentialis& into Ce)planatoryC versus Cta)onC so to open up the possibility that nature as &over itself could evolve. In 'ristotlePs syste& there is conceptual indistinction, at least on the level of species and above. #oughly, for 'ristotle, the sa&e principle 0hich e)plains 0hy offspring have the sa&e for&al nature as end as their parents -- 0hy &an begets &an and horse begets horse --in a given generation also e)plains 0hy lines of descent have the sa&e for& across generations -- and therefore 0hy species can be eternal 3so long as they -eep reproducing4. 'ristotlePs Cta)ono&ic nature essentialis&C, of course, 0as not the i&plausible caricature presented to us by conte&poraneous antiessentialists. /he reason, for hi&, that horses begat horses generation after generation and did not evolve 0as that the species-for& deviants 0ere unadapted to the environ&entB being so, they died off and so did not pass on their deviant for&s. Proposed 0as &ore or less a &odel of survival of the fittest in 0hich the fittest 0ere for& typicalB the defects of the deviants 0ere eli&inated across generations 3see6 7enno), <>>;4. /hat is, the regulatory &echanis& behind 'ristotlePs generational return to the species for& see&s to have been very practical. 's !enery 3<>>A4 noted, 'ristotelian biology see&s to have been &ore or less co&patible 0ith evolutionary biology. !e Just see&s to not have i&agined that nu&erous &icro adaptations 3e.g., the horsePs 2hiteness4 could gradually add up to co&prise &acro ones. 2hatever the case, he didnPt see this and so his ta)on essentialis& 0as not distinct fro& his natural essentialis&B the for&er 0as an e)tension of the latter. 'nother -ey difference is that 0hile 'ristotle recogni,ed subspecific heritable variation -e.g., Blac- Ethiopians, 0hite horses, and the pug-nosed Socrates -- he did recogni,e this variation as being essential in the sa&e sense of essential in 0hich species had essencesB this issue is co&ple) and there is a long running debate over 0hether and in 0hat 0ay he recogni,ed individual 3and by i&plication subspecific4 essences. But, generally, 'ristotlePs for&al nature as &over 0hich caused horses to beget horses 0as functionally different fro& his nature 0hich caused Ethiopians to beget EthiopiansB 0hich is 0hy he didnPt thin- that sub-specif Cfor&sC 0ere eternal. In contrast to his position, 0ith Ce)planatory natural essentialis&C, 0e erase the distinction bet0een the species type of for&al natures and any other type. No0, granting our t0ofold distinction, 0e can &a-e sense of the various characteri,ations of essentialis&. /he sociologist version is si&ply a crude version of e)planatory nature essentialis& applied to subspecific variationB "ayrEs 3;?G?4 characteri,ation describes ta)ono&ic natural essentialis&B Sterelny and GriffithsEs 3;???4 characteri,ation describes character essentialis&, 0hich as noted above, represents a &isreading of the classic position, since strictly spea-ing unifor&ity of character 3or the individual reali,ation of for&al nature as &over4 0as not a necessary condition for ta)on &e&bership. III-E. A #efense of Racial Essentialis) :in the +ea7 Ex lanator" 5ense;

2e are no0 in a position to fir&ly evaluate 0hether subspecific variation 0as conceived essentialistically during the ;A>> to ;?>>s. Si&ply, it 0asnPt in the ta)on natural senseB it 0asnPt in the character essentialist oneB and it 0asnPt in the e)planatory natural sense as applied to species. It possibly could be said that races 0ere at times thought to have essences in a 0ea- e)planatory natural sense -- that is, that they 0ere thought to have different genotypesB but here 0e are using Cessentialis&C anachronistically. /his usage &a-es sense post-%ar0in because 0e understand that horses beget horses essentially, so to spea-, for the sa&e reason that Ethiopians beget EthiopiansB in both cases, genotypes are passed on. But even this so&e0hat anachronistic version of race essentialis& is strained because &any of the early racial theorists adopted, for subspecific yet not species level groupings, 0hat 0e 0ould no0 understand to be epigenetic andQor 7a&arc-ian vie0s, vie0s 0hich are difficult to re-envision in ter&s of biological essentialis&. In su&, the position that historic concepts of race 0ere essentialistic is difficult to defend. .ur conclusion stands in star- contrast 0ith the co&&on vie0, rehashed by 'ndresean 3;??K4, that CNiOn the spirit of 'ristotle, subspecies 0ere first defined as types-as natural -inds defined in ter&s of an essential property possessed by all and only the &e&bers of the sa&e subspecies.C /he fre:uent association of race concepts 0ith essentialis&, especially in the ta)on natural sense, can not si&ply be dis&issed as a product of dishonest rhetoric. 2e &ust conclude that so&ething &ore is involved as critical revie0ers of historic race concepts 0ill often e)onerate so&e scientists of subspecific ta)on essentialis& but then unreasonably attribute the idea to others. (ac-son and 2eid&an 3<>>@4 for e)a&ple, after e:uating 7innaeusP PvarietyP 0ith his PspeciesP, dee& 7innaeus to be a ta)on racial essentialistB Buffon and Blu&enbach, ho0ever, are e)onerated. /he above noted, 0ith our e)planatoryQta)on distinction in hand -- 0hich is not particularly novel to usB see for e)a&ple, 2alshPs 3<>>A4 defense of biological essentialis& -- 0e can construct a 0ea- for& of biological racial essentialis&. Conceptuali,ing the &ost basic version of e)planatory biological essentialis& as a position 0hich e)plains in ter&s of so&e property6 3;4 0hy so&e particular individuals belongs to a discrete biological set and 3<4 0hy the biological set e)hibits the characters it does and 'nd given that genetic propin:uity of descent closely corresponds to genotypic si&ilarity, 0e can state that the essence or to ti 8n einai of an evolutionary race is its location in &ultidi&ensional genetic space. .ur subspecific natural populations are located in a uni:ue region of genetic space on the account of the uni:ue gene pool of the set of individuals 0hich constitute the&B since the &e&bership of these sets, at least 0hen discretely conceptuali,ed, is defined in ter&s of relative pair0ise genetic si&ilarity, the sa&e property 0hich e)plain 0hy individual belong to a population also e)plains the specific characters of the population and e)plains 0hy the individuals in the respective population tend to e)hibit the specific characters 0hich they do. In a sense, then, races

do have a 0hatness -- they have a 0hat-&a-es-the&-0hat-they-are-and-gives-then-thephenotypic-for&-0hich-they-have. Is this -ind of Cessentialis&C a &eaningful one1 2ell, it depends on ho0 one 0ant to construct the &eaning of Cessentialis&C. 's noted above, the ter& Cessentialis&C is often used very loosely in philosophical discourse. $itcher 3<>>H4, for e)a&ple, tells us that hu&an population-lineages donPt have CessencesC because the a&ount of genetic differentiation bet0een the& is Ctoo lo0C. By his understanding, hu&an biological races could, in principle, have essences -- and the races of e.g., .striches presu&ably do. I&aginably, $itcherPs essences are very si&ilar to the ones proposed above. In sociology, the usage of the ter& is not only loose but itPs loaded. %istinct positions are undifferentiated into a supposed all enco&passing &eta-essentialist vie0. (ayaratne 3<>>A4 epito&i,es this practice 0hen e)plaining that6
/hus, reporting that genes account for a difference bet0een social groups is tanta&ount to indicating genes are the essential 3and biological4 difference and, therefore, they can function as e)planations for difference. In this 0ay, genetic lay theories are a-in to essentialist lay theories. !o0ever, given that non-biological factors 3e.g. culture4 can create essential social classifications 3see $eller, <>>G4, genetic lay theories are aligned 0ith the notion of natural -inds essentialis& 3Gel&an, <>>=4. /hus, these theories e)hibit 0hat #othbart and /aylor 3;??<4 ter& inductive potential, in that the underlying essence 3genetic &a-e-up4 can trans&it a 0ealth of infor&ation 3not necessarily veridical4 about social groups. Genetic lay theories, in their si&ilarity to natural -ind sche&es, i&ply that social categories are discrete, i&&utable, and deter&ined by natural forces 3see !asla& et al.,<>>>4.

In one breath, the author lin-s together hereditarians&, e)planatory essentialis&, and classificatory essentialis& -- as if one 0as incapable of, for e)a&ple, being a class and ethnic hereditarian 0ithout believing that classes and ethnos 0ere Cdiscrete, i&&utable, and deter&inedC. /he point being &ade here is that our characteri,ation of 0ea- racial essentialis& as Ce)planatory essentialis&C applied to subspecific populations is not 0ithout Justification given the loose conte&poraneous usage of the ter&, a usage 0hich often e:uates Cessentialis&C 0ith the belief that group differ in genotypes and, on the trait level, due to genotypes. Granting, this conceptuali,ation of biological essentialis&, 0e are able to satisfy the Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyPs and otherPs baseless de&and for a discrete essentialistic concept of biological race. +urther, so&e have argued that 'ristotelian nature -inds 0ere groups 0hose shared phenotypic si&ilarities 0ere under0ritten by a co&&on cause 3e.g., !enry, <>;;4. E&ploying this natural -ind concept, in the &ost stripped do0n fashion, 0e can say that our evolutionary races, as they have e)planatory essences, constitute such -inds. /hus, 0hile 0e agree 0ith (ustin S&ith that biological races are not real natural -inds in the typical ;Hth to ;?th century Species realist sense, they can yet be said to be ones in an 'ristotelian sense. III-+. 're /hic- #aces %efensible1 5es So&e have argued against the reality of Cthic- racesC. Pierce 3<>;=4 thusly characteri,es this understanding6

3i4 #obust Genetic $ind6 races have so&e genetic co&&onality distinctive to each race 3ii4 Biobehavioral6 containing biological differences leading to differences in culture, &oral traits, behavior, and other non-out0ard traits 3iii4 Purist6 containing so&e ele&ent of racial purity 3iv4 Sociobiological6 populations 0ith reproductive isolation result in distinctive cultures ' thic-er concept of race involving so&e, or all, of these four ele&ents allo0s an easier argu&ent against the e)istence of races.

2e need not labor long on this point, sinceP thic- raceP is largely a soc--puppet for Pessential raceP. In 8#ace and #acial CognitionC 3$elly et al., <>;>4, it is e)plained, for e)a&ple, that thic- racialis& is CNtOhe doctrines that divided hu&an beings into putatively natural categoriesC. 2e are infor&ed that this doctrine 0as debun-ed so&eti&e in the t0entieth century because it beca&e Cobvious that the appropriate interpretationC of thicracialist clai&s 0as in ter&s of genetics and because, latter in the t0entieth century, Cthe supposition that there are genetic characteristics shared by all and only &e&bers of a race9 0as under&ined. 2e re&ind readers that punitive Cnatural categoriesC referred to are none other than Blu&enbachPs Carbitrary -inds of divisionsC. #egardless of the ahistoricity of this thic- race concept, since 0e 0ere able to construct a genetic for& of racial essentialis&, and since thic- racialis& is genetic racial essentialis&, 0e can readily defend the concept. Si&ply, there are senses in 0hich so&e hu&an races fulfill all four &entioned thic- race criteria. 's for the first, biological races, in general, are genetically distinct 0here CdistinctC &eans Crecogni,ably differentCB additionally, so&e hu&an races 3e.g., continental ones4 have, as populations, private allelesB &oreover, any race population concept can be translated into a set concept, 0ith can be characteri,ed in a discrete &anner. 's for the third, races understood as discrete sets can be said to be pure in the sense of un&i)ed as understood in section II-$. Pertaining to the second and fourth, as discussed in section I -", undoubtedly there are so&e biobehavioral differences bet0een so&e hu&an biological racesB and, undoubtedly, so&e cultural differences associated 0ith races are conditioned by biobehavioral differences. /he thic- race criteria, of course, could be understood other0ise. .ne could, for instance, re:uire a Crace geneC 3a la Gould4 to fulfill 3i4, no lineage ad&i)ture to fulfill 3ii4, and /iobehavioral9 5ociobiological differences 0hich &ar- out races :ua races as opposed to in 0hich races differ on average to fulfill 3ii and iv4. If so, there 0ould li-ely be no hu&an Cthic- racesC. So&e &ight 0onder ho0 0e &anaged to resurrect race. 'fter all, the traditional conception of race has supposedly been definitively refuted. Both supporters and opponents of biological race concepts see& to agree on this &atter. +or e)a&ple, though they defend a reva&ped biological race concept, Shiao et al. 3<>;<4 tell us6
2e argue that the recent research in genetics de&onstrates that certain racial, and also ethnic, categories have a biological basis in statistically discernible clusters of alleles rather than in the traditional notions of hu&an races as arising fro& categorically distinct ancestries or as possessing categorically uni:ue essences 3"ar-s <>>AB Spic-ard ;??<4.

'nd Caspari 3<>>?4, 0ho is hostile to the race concept, infor&s us that6

Both 7innaeus and Blu&enbach 0ere ;Kth century Tg-ures cited by !rdlic `-a 3;?;Ka4 for placing &an 0ithin the natural history tradition ... /he races deTned by the 0estern race concept 0ere codiTed by 7innaeus and by the deTnitive ;>th edition of Syste&ae Naturae 37innaeus, ;HGK4B he described Tve subspecies of hu&ans listing both &orphological and behavioral characteristics of each type that 0ere considered a part of the essence of the category and 0ere i&plicitly 3and e)plicitly4 understood to be part of the intrinsic biology of the race ... /hus, fro& its very inception, the race concept e&bodied both essentialis& and biological deter&inis&. /he essence of the categories, believed to be stable and unchanging, 0as deTned by science.

2e agree 0ith Shiao et al. 3<>;<4 and Caspari 3<>>?4 that notions of races 0hich arose fro& Ccategorically distinct ancestriesC or 0hich possess Ccategorically uni:ue essencesC or 0hich are Cstable and unchangingC are indefensible. 5et indefensible also is the notion that historic concepts of race entailed these positions. 's for CaspariPs 3<>>?4 other co&&ents, one doesnPt even -no0 0hat to &a-e of the&, so riddled 0ith errors they are. .ne 0ould thin- that one 0ould ta-e the early vie0s of subspecific populations, e)pressed by 7innaeus, Blu&enbach, Buffon, $ant, and &any others not as a confir&ation but a refutation of the position that essentialistic thin-ing, as so characteri,ed, deter&ined conceptuali,ations of groups and group differences. .ne 0ould thin-. . 6ow did this bi9arre situation -- in which historic race is reconstructed as thic7 race and conte) orar" race is deconstructed on the account of not being faithful to the so-said historic conce t --co)e to ass1 5urel" du licit" la"ed and continues to la" a hand. The conce t of race was retroacti.el" re.ised into an i) lausible osition -- a historic straw race was constructed -- so to delegiti)i9e conte) oraneous for)ulations. There is so)ething else0 though. Essentialis)0 of an i) lausible sort0 is clearl" being ro4ected onto the race conce ts. +e sur)ise that the idea of race is seen to be thic70 because to see it as thin would lea.e unex lained the thic7 descri tions of so)e actual hu)an races. If the race conce t is not inherentl" thic70 essentialist0 and .alue-laded0 if it is not true that 3?b@iological deter)inis)0 this lin7ing of beha.ioral traits such as intelligence0 cri)inalit"0 industriousness0 and other ersonalit" traits to the essences of racial categories0 has been the co) onent of the race :Cas ari :BCC>;30 then what ossibl" could ex lain the freIuent and inter-generationall" stable erce tion of races and so)e race differences1 After all0 these erce tions )ust be infor)ed and stabili9ed b" so)ething8 if not re-existing stereot" es and hard to refute essentialistic conce ts0 what -- barring realit" ex erienced1 5ociologist Catherine Biss has argued that race is a Cbelief syste& that produces consistencies in perception and practice at a particular social and historical &o&entC 3Biss, <>;<4. 2e i&agine that &any anthropologists adopt a si&ilar vie0 because they si&ply canPt accept that it is reality 0hich is conditioning the said perceptual stability. IV. The Races of 2an I -'. ' ery Brief !istorical #evie0

As noted b" 5arich and 2iele :BCCG;0 classif"ing eo le b" inferred genetic ancestr" and differing )or holog" is neither a articularl" new nor a articularl" Euro ean idea. Crude racial classifications are de icted in Eg" tian0 !reco-Ro)an0 Chinese0 and Isla)ic art and literature. Eg" tians di.ided our s ecies into four races: Eg" tians0 Negros0 +hite -ib"ans0 and Asiatics :2iddle Easterners;. 6an Chinese differentiated between Caucasian and 2ongoloid barbarians. In !reece and Ro)e0 northern Euro eans0 unli7e sub-5aharan Africans0 were not classified as a se arate color grou . In Moretum0 the Ro)an oet Virgil characteri9ed the sub-5aharan African henot" e :dar7 s7in0 tightl" curled hair0 uff" li s0 broad shoulders; little different fro) how )odern anthro ologists ha.e. Isla)ic writers distinguished between blac7 sub-5aharan Africans and white North Africans. 2edie.al Isla)ic scholars distinguished white sla.es fro) blac7 5la.es. In short0 the existence of different eo les with different sets of heritable traits has long been recogni9ed0 and those differences werenDt seen as co) letel" continuous. IV-B. 6u)an Biological Races and 5cientific Consensus /here are, 0ithout a doubt, hu&an biological races as 0e have defined the&. /his state&ent &ight see& surprising to readers 0ho have co&e to believe in the e)istence of a scientific consensus concerning the none)istence of hu&an races. /he issue of scientific opinion on 8race9 is co&plicated, since CraceC is a polyse&e and people 0ho use the ter& often reference different, albeit overlapping, concepts. 2hen researchers are surveyed, they are typically not as-ed 0hether hu&an races in some biologically plausible sense e)its but 0hether hu&an races in as they mean do. #egarding this &ethod, 7ieber&an et al. 3<>>=4, notes, 8'fter centuries of study and discourse there is no consensual agree&ent on 0hat is &eant by race, therefore the participants should be as-ed about 0hat they &ean by Urace,E and 0hether they believe their definition is valid and useful in research.9 2hile 0e feel that researchers should be :ueried about specific concepts or about plausible for&ulation of the ordinary biological concept of race, 7ieber&anEs approach has routinely been ta-en. 2hen it co&es to scientific opinion on race, then, the issue is one of 0hether or not e)perts feel that race, as they subJectively understand the ter&, describes a level of hu&an biodiversity. #egarding this general vie0s, 7ieber&an et al. 3<>>=4, in their paper U/he #ace Concept in Si) #egions6 ariation 2ithout Consensus,E revie0ed studies fro& si) regions 3English-spea-ing nations, Spanish language areas, Poland, Europe, #ussia, and China4 and concluded6
/he reJection of race as a valid concept is present to varying degrees in all of the regions reported here e)cept China and #ussia. /his reJection varies fro& high to lo0 0ith highest reJection of race occurring a&ongst physical anthropologists in the *nited States, other English spea-ing nations 3&ostly Canada4, and PolandB &oderate reJection of race in EuropeB and si,eable, though :uite lo0, reJection of race evidenced in Poland and Cuba.

#evie0ing articles in 'cta 'nthropologica Sinica, 2ang et al. 3<>>=4 found that the race polyse&e 0as 8alive and 0ell9 in China. $as,yc-a et al. 3<>>?4 found that a &aJority of

European anthropologists agreed that there 0ere races either in the sense of subspecies or in so&e other senseB the authors found that anthropologists fro& Eastern bloc countries are &ore li-ely than those fro& 2estern bloc countries to vie0 hu&an biodiversity in racial ter&s. 'fter revie0ing the research, Ytr-alJ 3<>>H4 concluded6
#esearch sho0s that there is as yet no consensus on the status of the concept a&ong biological anthropologists. It also suggests that the reasons 30hich 0e are only beginning to understand &ore fully4 for differences in biological anthropologistsE attitudes to0ards race are to be sought in a variety of scientific, social and professional factors as 0ell as 8the vagaries of chance.9

/o get a better sense of the &atter, 0e scrutini,ed the responses reported in all available studies. 2e 0ere able to locate results fro& si) studies conducted fro& ;?KG to <>><. .f these, five 0ere based on the opinions of anthropologistsB t0o on biologistsB and one on anato&ists. /he largest study 0as based on a survey of the '&erican 'nthropological 'ssociation 3'''4. 'cross studies, =?[ of the respondent agreed that there 0ere hu&an biological races, G<[ disagreed, and ?[ 0ere undecided.

2e can conclude that there is no consensus a&ong anthropologists, etc., concerning 0hether race 3subJectively understood4 characteri,es a level of hu&an variation. But 0hat accounts for the substantial reJection of the polyse&e1 's noted by 2ang et al. 3<>>=4, 7ieber&an et al. 3<>>=4, Ytr-alJ 3<>>H4, and $as,yc-a et al., 3<>>?4, sociopolitics is a &aJor factor. 'nother is si&ply a disavo0al of the 0ord 8race.9 7ieber&an et al. 3<>>=4 noted6 8/he '&erican practice of using ethnic groups, 0as advocated by !u)ley and !addon "ontagu, and 7ieber&an and #eynolds, in order to refer to biological populations 0ithout the baggage of the race concept.9 /he authors suggested that this practice 0as ta-en up. If so, this accords 0ith the e&inent biologist Ernst "ayrEs state&ent6 8/here is a 0idespread feeling that the 0ord UraceE indicates so&ething undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions 3"ayr, <>><4.9 5et another

factor is the conceptuali,ation of race in a biologically unrealistic 0ay. 7. 7ieber&an, #. C. $ir- and ". Corcoran 3<>>=4 provide so&e infor&ation on ho0 ''' &e&bers understand race and 0hy they reJect the concept as they understand it6

3/able based on 7ieber&an, 7., $ir-, #. C., a Corcoran, ". 3<>>=44 'pparently, &any ''' &e&bers feel that biological race 3;4 precludes population continuu&s andQor character clinesB 3<, =4 re:uires high levels of genetic ho&ogeneityB and 3@4 precludes gene flo0. .bviously, the biological race concept held by these ''' &e&bers is :uite unli-e our concept, concepts held by &any biologists and anthropologists, and typical historic concepts 30ith regards to these see e.g., section -!. /rue #ace 'rgu&ents4. /o address so&e specific points6 the issue of CclinalityC 0as discussed in Section II-C -- it 0as noted that the presence of a population continuu& doesnEt even preclude for&al racial recognitionB in Sections I-G and I -G and -B.<, the issue of gene flo0 0as touched uponB in section I -G, the point about genetic variation 0as briefly discussed -- as illustrated in that section, the &aJority of for&ally recogni,ed biological races 3,oological subspecies4 sho0 &ore genetic variation 0ithin groups than bet0een. .n these four grounds ta-en together, the ''' &e&bers 0ould have to reJect the e)istence of &ost !ormally recognized races. Generally, these anthropologists are not even considering a biologically realistic conceptB one 0onders if they are fa&iliar 0ith the biological literature, past and present 3and not Just their colleaguesP distorted renditions of it4. .ne final factor is a &ental refusal by so&e to thin- in ter&s of hu&an biological divisions. /here has been a fifty-year ideological 0ar against such thin-ing. 'ntagonists of subspecific thin-ing are not difficult to locate. +or e)a&ple, $as,yc-a et al., 3<>>?4, cited above, conclude6 8!ence, the struggle against the concept of UraceEFin all of its connotationsFis bound still to be long and arduous. Nonetheless, it is one e&inently 0orth0hile to continue to underta-e.9 .verall, the results of the surveys cited above do not tell us &uch about 0hich race concepts are being reJected and 0hich acceptedB in particular, they donEt tell us if our %ar0inian concept 0ould be reJected. 2e i&agine that, if they 0ere to be logically consistent, very fe0 anthropologists, biologists, geneticists, and philosophers could reJect such racesF0hether or not they 0ish to thin- about the&. IV-C. Racial Classifications and Biological Race Conce ts

!ere 0e define a racial classification 3#C74 as a race based categori,ation that is co&&only e&ployed by so&e people so&e0here. 2e e&phasi,e that a #C7 is not a racial concept. ' #C7 represents a specific syste& of grouping created in line 0ith a specific racial conceptB a racial concept represents a conception about 0hat &a-es races races. 2e see t0o i&portant reasons for &a-ing this classification versus concept distinction6 3a4 a given #C7 &ight identify populations that fail to &eet the basic criteria for 0hat-it-is-to-be-a-race as stipulated by a given race conceptB 3b4 a given racial concept &ay lend itself to &ultiple correct non identical #C7s. 's e)a&ple of 3a4, a #C7 0hich included as one division CNorth !e&ispherians C and as another division CSouth !e&ispheriansC 0ould &isidentify populations 0ith respect to our evolutionary race concept. 's an e)a&ple of 3b4, 0e recall 'ulchen-o 3<>;>46 CIn hu&an genetics literature you &ay find references to a particular genetically isolated population, population of so&e country 3e.g., 8Ger&an population,9 8population of the *nited $ingdo&94, European, Caucasoid or even general hu&an population.C ' race concept can lend itself to &any nested race classifications si&ilar to ho0 the concept of Pstatistical populationsP can. /hat clarified, it goes 0ithout saying that so&e #C7s &isidentify populations 0ith respect to the biological race concept 0hich 0e are discussing. In the *S, for e)a&ple, the federal govern&ent, as of <>;<, recogni,es the follo0ing racial groups6 C2hitesC, CBlac-sC, C'siansC, C'&erican IndiansC, and C"ultiracialsC. 's for C'siansC, the *S depart&ent of 7abor, states6 C/he definition used for C'sian or Pacific IslanderC in %irective No. ;G refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the +ar East, Southeast 'sia, the Indian subcontinent, and the Pacific Islands.C /here is no C'sianC evolutionary natural population that 0e are a0are of 0hich includes both South 'sians and North East 'sians and yet e)cludes 2est Eurasians. /his #C7 is incongruent 0ith our race concept. 's such, the C'sianC class is biologically &eaningless in the narrow sense. IV-#.=. 6u)an 6olocene Races 2e could discuss any #C7 but 0e 0ill focus on the one fre:uently discussed -- the traditional #C7 0hich describes the !olocene race of &an. /his classification has been characteri,ed varyingly as the Cthe !olocene races of &anC, Cthe classic races of &anC, Cthe continental races of &anC, Cthe races of &odern &anC, and Cfol- racesC. 2e 0ill call the classification, per se, the Ctraditional #C7C 3/#C74 and the groups classified the C!u&an !olocene #acesC 3!!#4. /he pri&ary races based on this classification include6 Negroids 3sub-Saharan 'fricans4, Caucasoids 32est Eurasians4, and "ongoloids 3East Eurasians4B other groups, such as '&erindians 3Native '&ericans4 and 'ustraloids 3Indigenous 'ustralians, Papua Ne0 Guineans, and "elanesians4, are often also recogni,ed. %escribed are the &aJor continental-level hu&an populations, 0hich have e)isted fro& roughly ;>-G> -ya 3depending on 0hich groups are being discussed4 to &odern ti&es. 3.bviously, one could refer to a different ti&e and derive different continental races, e.g., &odern hu&ans versus archaic hu&ans, but, if so, one 0ould no longer be dealing 0ith the /#C7 and the !!#.4

6olocene Races of 2an

3"odified fro&6 http6QQ000.&useu&.-yushu-u.ac.JpQ2'(INQ;;=.ht&l4 .ne &ight co&pare the validity of the /#C7 to that of traditional continental classifications. Currently, the nu&ber of continents are said to range fro& G to H, depending on ho0 one divides up the land &asses. 't a different ti&e, the range 0ould have been different. 'nd the delineated continents represent neither a CtrueC characteri,ation of the EarthEs geographic diversity, nor a &etaphysically 8privileged9 level of analysis. 's such, a "artian geographer &ight very 0ell co&e up 0ith a different classificatory syste& and, for e)a&ple, dee& Greenland to be a continent, or co&bine Europe and 'sia, or &a-e no distinction bet0een large and s&all land &asses 3continents and s&all islands4. /he origin of this classification sche&e can be traced to the 0or-s of Berneir 3;AKK4, 7innaeus 3;H=G4, and Blu&enbach 3;HHG4. In his C' Ne0 %ivision of the EarthC, Berneir 3;AKK4 atte&pted to create Ca ne0 division of the earth, according to the different species or races of &en 0ho inhabit itC. !e derived Cfour or five species or races of &anC6 /he first species included Europeans, North 'fricans, "iddle Easterners, and &ost South 'siansB interestingly, in the four species version, he also adds '&ericans, noting6 C's far as the '&ericans are concerned, they are really &ostly olive- s-inned and their faces have a rather different shape fro& ours. Nevertheless I do not consider that that difference is so large as to 0arrant &a-ing the& a special type distinct fro& our o0n.C /he second species included Sub-Saharan 'fricansB the third species included South and North East 'sians along 0ith &any Central 'siansB the fourth species included 7apps -- itPs not clear 0hich precise populations 0ere being referenced. /he divisions 0ere &ade on the basis of differences in &orphological traits 3not li&ited to color4 that 0ere presu&ed to have a congenital basis. In the tenth edition of his CSyste&s Naturae 3;H=G4C, Carl 7innaeus divided up ho&o sapiens into four &aJor geographic varieties6 CEuropbus albusC 3Europeans4,C'&ericanus rubescensC 3Native '&ericans4,C'siaticus fuscusC 3East 'sians4, and C'fricanus nigerC 3sub-Saharan 'fricans4. #eferencing these t0o Just&entioned authors and others, in his ;HHG treatise, C/he Natural arieties of "an-indC,

(ohann Blu&enbach proposed five &aJor varieties6 Caucasians 3including Europeans &inus 7apps, North 'fricans, "iddle Easterners, and South 'sians as far as the .bi river, Caspian Sea, and Ganges4, "ongoloids 3including the rest of East 'sia, the 7apps, etc4, Ethiopians 3including all sub-Saharan 'fricans4, and "alay 3including Pacific Islanders, Indonesians, "alaysians, and +ilipinos4. No0, it is not being argued that there 0as perfect consistency a&ong early ta)ono&iesB regarding this point, readers are encouraged to read Blu&enbachPs su&&ary of various other proposals. 'nd it is not being argued that any of the early classifications &entioned perfectly &ap onto the evolutionary race concept. It is &aintained that these early sche&es 3&entioned4 did not co&pletely &isidentify populations 0ith respect to our race concept. "oreover, 0e assert that these classification sche&es for& the basis of the /#C7 and that there is reasonable consistency bet0een these and &ore recent continental level classifications such to allo0 one to spea- of the /#C7. /o give a sa&pling of &ore recent continental-level #C7s, that is, of &ore recent versions of the /#C76
Nei and #oychoudhury 3;?H@4 have sho0n that the differences a&ong negroids, caucasoids, and &ongoloids in the protein and blood group loci are slight co&pared 0ith those bet0een individuals 0ithin any one of the&. /here is disagree&ent on the nu&ber of &aJor races that should be recogni,ed. 't a &ini&u&, the 'ustraloids are added to the three referred to above. 32right, ;?HK4 In this paper, 0e have atte&pted to identify the &aJor groups of hu&an populations and to infer their evolutionary relationships. /he &aJor groups identified here are &ore si&ilar to those recogni,ed by classical anthropologists than to those by Cavalli-Sfor,a et al. 3 ;?KK4. /hat is, hu&an populations can be subdivided into five &aJor groups6 3'4 negroid 3'fricans4, 3B4 caucasoid 3Europeans and their related populations4, 3C4 &ongoloid 3East 'sians and Pacific Islanders4, 3%4 '&erindian 3including Es-i&os4, and 3E4 australoid 3'ustralians and Papuans4. 3/here are inter&ediate populations, 0hich are apparently products of gene ad&i)ture of these &aJor groups, but they are ignored here.4 !o0ever, the evolutionary relationships of these &aJor groups are hierarchical rather than parallel, and so&e groups apparently originated fro& a population belonging to so&e other groups 3e.g., australoid4. 3Nei and #oychoudhury, ;??=4 So, a&ong the si) geographic races of the 0orld described by Ca&pbell 3;??<4, Gill and #hine 3;??>4, and other -- blac- 3Negroid4 , 0hite 3Caucasoid4, East 'sian 3"ongoloid4, "elanesianQ 'ustralian 3'ustraloid4, '&erican Indian and Polynesian -- four are 0ell described &etrically and anthroposcopically, 0hile t0o 3Polynesians and 'ustraloid4 are not. 3Gill, ;??K4 Effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classic definition of races based on continental ancestry -- na&ely 'frican, Caucasian 3Europe and "iddle East4, 'sian, Pacific Islander 3for e)a&ple, 'ustralian, Ne0 Guinean, and "elanesian4, and Native '&erican. 3#isch et al., <>><4 Indeed, a <>>< study by scientists at the *niversity of Southern California and Stanford sho0ed that if a sa&ple of people fro& around the 0orld are sorted by co&puter into five groups on the basis of genetic si&ilarity, the groups that e&erge are native to Europe, East 'sia, 'frica, '&erica and 'ustralasia - &ore or less the &aJor races of traditional anthropology. 37eori, <>>G4

/he argu&ent &ade here is that since there is a rough continuity bet0een so&e of the early classification sche&es and so&e of the &ore recent ones, itPs &eaningful to spea- of the Ctraditional #C7C as if it described a so&e0hat cross-te&porally coherent syste&,

one 0hich has been and is still subJect to alteration but not to funda&ental revision. But isnPt this obvious1 2ell, 0hether or not it is, so&e clai& that there has only been classificatory confusion 0ith respect to the #C7. BarbuJani and Colonna 3<>;>4, for e)a&ple, clai&ed6 C.n the contrary, no t0o racial catalogs proposed are entirely consistentC. /he authors purport to sho0 this by listing thirteen classifications, t0o of 0hich are sociological and another five of 0hich describe local, not continent-level, races. /he table belo0 sho0s, in blue, the ma:or races described in BarbuJani and ColonnaPs 3<>;>4 cited sources in addition to those in a nu&ber of other influential ta)ono&ies. 2e notice, firstly, that all of the classifications include three &aJor races F groupings 0hich do not reflect si&ple continental ancestry. /hat is, racial lines are not dra0n geographically, but rather biologicallyB as such, in no instance are North 'fricans grouped into a 8pan-'frican race9 along 0ith sub-Saharan 'fricans, and in no instance are South 'sians grouped into a 8pan-'sian9 race along 0ith East 'sians. Secondly, the areas of disagree&ent are generally sensible in light of current &orphological and genetic data. +or e)a&ple, at ti&es, South 'sians 0ere treated as a &aJor race separate fro& other 2est EurasiansB and it so happens that this is the first &aJor 2est Eurasian group to separate out at a finer grain of analysis. 7i-e0ise, there has been continual disagree&ent as to the status of Pacific Islanders 3these various peoples being classified as a &aJor race separate fro& the big three, grouped 0ith "ongoloids or at ti&es 'ustraloids, or treated as several &aJor races4B part of the disagree&ent reflects ter&inology, &uch of it discord bet0een genetic and &orphological 3e.g., cranio&etric4 differentiation, and &uch of it to a co&bination of continual East 'sian gene flo0 into the region and reduced gene flo0 bet0een subregions. .ther areas of disagree&ent are li-e0ise biologically sensible. +or e)a&ple, Ethiopians 0ere so&eti&es considered caucasoid, so&eti&es negroid F and they happen to be rather ad&i)ed. /he point here is that &uch of the classificatory confusion parallels actual population co&ple)ity. If so, BarbuJani and ColonnaEs argu&ent is valid6 ta)ono&ies are confused 0hen populations are not 0ell separated or are ad&i)ed. But the ta)ono&ies arenEt confused. .ur &odus ponens see&s to be BarbuJani and ColonnaPs 3<>;>4 &odus tollens.

/he above chart, of course, conceals a great deal of fine disagree&ent, disagree&ent 0hich is conveyed in that belo06

2hile 0e see the &aJor groupings, there 0as one significant disagree&ent6 ho0 to classify regional populations, such as Negrito, based on 3relatively crude4 &orphological analyses. But granting overall consistency 3as &any opponents of biological race do, if only to label conte&porary classifications 8Eurocentric94, the :uestion is 0hether or not this traditional racial classification is consistent 0ith a %ar0inian race concept. .ur ans0er6 certainly. "olecular evidence re:uires a &odification of the classification, but no funda&ental revision. Based on that evidence, 0e infer the follo0ing natural biological populations corresponding to those of the /#C76 Negroids 3sub-Saharan 'fricans4, Caucasoids 32est Eurasians4, "ongoloids 3East 'sians4, 'ustraloids 3.ceanians4, and '&erindians 3Native '&ericans4. /his isnEt to say that these are the !olocene races of &anB rather, these are or at a certain ti&e 0ere the &aJor !olocene races of &an. .ne can al0ays lu&p or split populationsB and yet these specific populations can be inferred fro& the correlation of genes across geography.
2e also found that in an unsupervised cluster analysis, individuals grouped into geographical clusters largely corresponding to sub-Saharan 'frica, Europe and the part of 'sia 0est of the !i&alayas, the part of 'sia east of the !i&alayas, .ceania, and the '&ericas. /hese observations

are co&patible 0ith serial sa&pling, assu&ing that &aJor geographic barriers such as oceans, the Sahara desert, and the !i&alayas 0ere not fre:uently crossed during hu&an &igrations.

7i-e0ise, "cEvoy et al. 3<>;;4 note6

/he &atri) of pair0ise interpopulation genetic distances 3+S/ values4 0as used to construct a neighbor-Joining 3N(4 phylogenetic tree that su&&ari,es the relationship of the G< populations to each other 3+igure ;'4. /he tree divides the populations into five broad groups6 'frican, East 'sian, 2est Eurasian 3European, "iddle Eastern, and Central and South 'sian populations4, '&erican, and .ceanic. /his continental division of the hu&an species reflects the result of different historic &igratory paths that hu&ans too- during the last ;>> thousand years 3see, for e)a&ple, Prugnolle et al. 3<>>G4.

No0, 0e are not here suggesting that cluster analysis al0ays and at every ti&e identifies at $VG the continental races &entioned above. 2e presu&e, though, that they 0ould identify these populations if the &a)i&u& a&ount of genetic infor&ation possible 30hole geno&es4 0as used. If not, 0e 0ould be forced to &odify our rendition of the /#C7. IV-E. 66R as Biologicall" /b4ecti.e Races It has been argued that as the !!# represent divisions i&posed on hu&an genetic diversity, that they have no genetically obJective basis. +or e)a&ple, "ar-s 3;??@4 states6 C/he racial categories 0ith 0hich 0e have beco&e so fa&iliar 0ith are the result of out i&posing arbitrary cultural boundaries in order to partition gradual biological variation.C 2hen carving out natural populations fro& &ultidi&ensional genetic space, one necessarily needs to select a ti&e period 3e.g., <>>,>>> years ago4 and a degree of genetic relatedness 3e.g., on the level of genus4. Strictly spea-ing, these t0o boundary di&ensions cannot be obJectively defined. If one is dealing 0ith a perfect population continuu&, then regions of genetic space can also not be e&pirically obJectively defined. In that circu&stance, one 0ould have to CarbitrarilyC pic- out non-overlapping regions Just as is done 0hen defining electro&agnetic regions 3e.g., Cvisible lightC, CultravioletC, and Cc-raysC4. +or hu&ans, to the e)tent that there are such perfect population continuu&s, racial categories are, in a sense, arbitrary, 0hich is not to say artificialB 0e donPt &a-e &uch of arbitrariness in this sense, because as %ar0in noted 3see6 e.g., %ar0in 3;?A<4 p. <A<4, 0hen loo-ed at across both ti&e and space all natural population divisions are arbitraryB that is, 0ere one to ta-e into account all life for&s, living and e)tinct, one 0ould find a genetic continuu&. /here is a deep sense, then, in 0hich natural population divisions are intrinsically arbitraryB they appear only 0hen the full range of biological diversity, past and present, is not ta-en into account. #egardless, it so happens that, on the inter-continental level, there is no hu&an population continuu&. 's a result, one cannot carve out pan-'frican, North Eurasian, and South Eurasian natural populations. .ne cannot strictly geographically define races. But one can use unsupervised genetic clustering to e&pirically obJectively define, 0ith regards to region of genetic space, continental evolutionary races 3given so&e ti&e period and grain of focus4.

"oreover, 0hile one can not strictly obJectively define a grain of focus, to so&e e)tent one can also use genetic data to &a-e a case that certain grains are preferable to othersB as discussed by #osenberg et. al. 3<>>G4, for e)a&ple, certain grains of focus e)hibit higher levels of clusterednessB as discussed by !errde, 3<>>?4, certain grains e)hibit less cluster discordanceB as discussed by 2itherspoon et al. 3<>>H4, certain grains e)hibit a lo0er dissi&ilarity fraction. Since opponents of biological race often argue that Crace failsC because hu&an natural populations donPt cluster enough or because differences bet0een populations arenPt different enough, one &ight -- though 0e donPt -- ta-e degree of clusteredness and a&ount of dissi&ilarity fraction as an inde) of race idealness. Since the grain of focus on 0hich the /#7C e)ists obJectively sho0s higher clusteredness, higher cluster concordance, and lo0er dissi&ilarity fraction than &any other grains of focus there are e&pirical reasons to prefer, relative to &any other possible classifications, the /#C76 less discordance of character, &ore clusterability, lo0er dissi&ilarity fraction. .n the basis of genetic data alone, then, the !!# of the /#C7 can be biologically obJectively pic-ed out to a large e)tent. Given the genetic data and so&e ideali,ed sense of race, the /#C7 can also be preferred over &any other #C7s. /here are, then, e&pirical reasons to privilege this classification sche&e. 's such, it is not true that there is no obJective basis for pic-ing out the /#C7. 'nd it is not true that the Cracial categories 0ith 0hich 0e have beco&e so fa&iliar 0ith are the result of out i&posing arbitrary cultural boundaries in order to partition gradual biological variationC. In any case, as discussed, 0e donPt see a conflict bet0een gradual biological variation and natural biological populations. So, even if it 0ere true, as it often is on the intra-continental level, it 0ould be of no &atter 3to us4. IV-(. 66R0 2igration0 and 2iscegenation It has been argued that the idea of hu&an races has so&eho0 been &ade incoherent because of recent &igrations. %iscussing this vie0, Cro0 3<>><4 notes6
Because of this &i)ing, &any anthropologists argue, :uite reasonably, that there is no scientific Justification for applying the 0ord 8race9 to populations of hu&an beings.... *nli-e those anthropologists 0ho deny the usefulness of the ter&, I believe that the 0ord 8race9 can be &eaningfully applied to groups that are partially &i)ed.

/his issue usually arises in discussions of hu&an geographic races 3understood as allotropic subspecific divisions4 and, &ore specifically, in discussions of the !olocene hu&an races. *ntil recently, hu&an populations 0ere allotropic enough to racially differentiate, as sho0n by cluster &apping. !o0ever, recent innovations have increased hu&an &obility to the point that geographic populations are ho&ogeni,ing. /he :uestion then arises as to 0hether traditional continental classifications are still coherent given this recent deracination. #acial ho&ogeni,ation per se is Just one of &any of fates to 0hich races and subspecies are potentially subJect. "ayr and .brien 3;??;4 tell us6

's 0e have noted, races, li-e species, are te&porally located. /hat is, geographic racial classifications are relative not only to the grain of focus analy,ed, but they are also relative to the te&poral range consideredB this point is captured by the concept of te&poral races 3see, e.g., "ayr and 'shloc-, ;?A?B ;??;4.

But ho0 does this affect the status of biological races1 /he &odern hu&an geographic evolutionary races circa ;>,>>> BC to ;,G>> '% differ fro& the geographic hu&an races circa <>>,>>> to ;>>,>>> BC and before. Both of these racial classifications are biologically valid and &eaningful, since race describes te&porally specific natural populations. !ence, it &a-es sense to spea- of "odern and 'rchaics hu&an races, even though the latter class is presently e&ptyB as such, it is intelligible to note that &any "odern hu&an races have varying a&ounts of 'rchaic ad&i)ture. 3See figure belo0.4 In d0indling, races 3e.g., !o&o sapiens neanderthalensis4 do not beco&e, in so&e 0ay, incoherentB they beco&e unpopulatedB and, by our concept of biologically real, they beco&e non-real at a given ti&e 3e.g., !o&o sapiens neanderthalensis represents a presently non real hu&an biological raceQse&ispecies4. /he upshot of these considerations is that the issue of &igration and &iscegenation is largely irrelevant to the overall biological race issue in the sense that racial e)tinction, transfor&ation, hybridi,ation, or speciation only alters the :uestion at hand fro& C2hich races e)ist presently1C to C2hich races e)isted in the past1C -- fro& C2hich individuals belong to 0hich present races1C to C2hich individuals descended 3and to 0hat e)tent4 fro& 0hich past races1C 2a4or 6u)an Races and #ifferent Ti)es

.rom; Pr^fer, et al. 3<>;=4. /he co&plete geno&e se:uence of a Neanderthal fro& the 'ltai "ountains. 2ature.

As for the extinction or transfor)ation of a biological race0 there are no clear rules for deter)ining when these e.ents occur. In what "ear0 for exa) le0 did 6o)o sa iens neanderthalensis cease to exist1 +hen the .er" last oc7et of this hu)an subs ecies died out or interbred and was absorbed1 +e can ose the sa)e Iuestion for nu)erous non-hu)an races. +e )ight as70 for exa) le: if onl" FC rhinoceros re)ain in the world0 =J of the $blac7& subs ecies and =J of the $white& subs ecies0 and for conser.ation ur oses the" were laced in the sa)e 9oo with )e)bers of both grou s laced in the sa)e enclosure0 does the s ecies Rhinoceros still ha.e geogra hic races or subs ecies1 If not0 when recisel" did the s ecies cease to ha.e subs ecies1 It is the sorites aradox a lied to taxa. No atte) t to answer these Iuestions will be )ade here. +e as7 the) si) l" to illustrate the a)biguit" of the situation and to show that the Iuestion of race cannot be resol.ed b" eli)inating races or geogra hic ranges. I -G. 're the !!# hu&an subspecies1 In biology, there are t0o 0idely accepted concepts of subspecies6 ecotypes and 8geographic races9 3i.e., for&ally recogni,ed, geographically delineated races a.-.a. ,oological subspecies4. Neither subspecies concept is identical 0ith the biological race concept. #egarding the distinction bet0een biological race and 8geographic race9, the geographic race concept logically i&plies a &ore generic biological race concept than itself. Si&ply put, 8geographic races9 are for&ally recogni,ed geographically delineated biological races. /his point 0as conveyed by 2ilson and Bro0n 3;?G=4 in their classic criti:ue of the ,oological subspecies concept. /he authors note6
N...O "ayr 3;?@<4 gave an e)tensive revie0 of the evidence on variation 0ithin the species. !e 0as &ainly concerned 0ith variation of populations as correlated 0ith geography, and particularly 0ith the properties and evolutionary significance of the subspecies, a category generally regarded as synony&ous 0ith the geographical race.... It has been affir&ed repeatedly in a variety of ani&al groups that racial populations sho0 all degrees of divergence fro& the lo0est level of statistical reliability of &ean difference to co&plete differentiation, 0ith no particular tendency to fall either 0ay. .bviously the only 0ay to resolve this situation ta)ono&ically is to establish an arbitrary lo0er li&it above 0hich populations 0ill be for&ally recogni,ed as subspecies.

2ilson and Bro0n 3;?G=4 note that the ter&s Cgeographic raceC and ,oological CsubspeciesC are generally used synony&ously. /hey go on to argue that rules for for&ally recogni,ing geographic 8racial populations9 as 8geographic races9 are inherently arbitrary. None of this discussion is coherent unless it is understood that 8geographic races9 or ,oological subspecies are Pfor&ally recogni,ed geographic racesP. 32hile the ter& Cgeographic raceC is often used as a synony& for ,oological subspecies, so&eti&es it isnPtB for e)a&ple, not using the ter&s synony&ously, "ayr and 'shloc3;?A?4 state6 CN'O subspecies is a geographic race that is sufficiently different ta)ono&ically to be 0orthy of a separate na&e.C

2ith the above considerations in &ind, 0e can as-6 %o the !!# 3or, for that &atter, any other set of hu&an biological races4 :ualify either as ecotypic or ,oological subspecies1 3a4 Ecotypes $ing and Stansfield 3;??>4 define an ecotype, also -no0n as an ecotypic subspecies, as6 UU' phenotypically andQor geographically distinctive subspecific group, co&posed of individuals inhabiting a defined geographical andQor ecological region, and possessing characteristic phenotypic and gene fre:uencies that distinguish it fro& other such groups.E By this definition, 0hich see&s to be 0ell accepted, all sets of differently environ&entally adapted biological races :ualify as ecotypic subspecies. /his follo0s fro& 3;4 the lac- of distinction bet0een ecotypes, in general, and ecotypic subspecies and fro& 3<4 the fact that ecotypes can characteri,e differentially adapted populations, not &erely differentially adapted sets of individuals 0ho unifor&ly differ in the adapted traits in :uestion. 's for point 3;4, by virtue of indistinction, all population 0hich :ualify as ecotypes necessarily :ualify as ecotypic subspecies and, therefore, as subspecies, ecologically understood. 's for point 3<4, a careful reading of the definition &a-es clear that the prere:uisite Ccharacteristic phenotypic and gene fre:uenciesC are properties of the group or population and not necessarily of each individual &e&ber. Consistent 0ith this reading, "ayr 3;?H>4 notes that all 8geographic races9 are necessarily ecotypes and that all ecotypes are at least &icro-geographic races. Since, according to "ayr, 8geographic races9 describe subspecific populations that differ on average, this for&ulation logically i&plies that not all &e&bers of an ecotype &ust share the specific adapted traits in :uestion. It follo0s that all natural biological populations, 0hich differ, as populations, in genetically conditioned traits due to environ&ental adaptations, :ualify as biological ecotypic subspecies. Given this, itPs trivially true that the !!# :ualify as ecotypic subspecies.

3b4 Geographic #aces 'nd 0hat about geographic races1 CGeographic racesC are for&ally recogni,ed geographically delineated evolutionary races. Since the for&al recognition of all biological races 0ould result in ta)ono&ic chaos, only the ones that are dee&ed ta)ono&ically significant enough are for&ally recogni,ed 3"ayr and 'shloc-, ;?A?4. 2hen it co&es to deciding if races should be so recogni,ed, "ayr and 'shloc- offer the follo0ing advice6
%egree of difference is only one of a nu&ber of considerations in the recognition of a subspecies 3Chap. =4. ' yardstic- such as the C% 0ill help to achieve &ore unifor& standards, but other infor&ation, such as degree of isolation, presence or absence of clinal variation, presence or absence of a chec-er-board type of distribution, or discordant variation of different characters, &ust be e:ually ta-en into consideration.

.f the five criteria &entioned, the only one for 0hich there is a se&i-accepted :uantitative standard is the one pertaining to sufficient degree of differentiation. /he standard is called the HG[ rule. By this rule, ta)ono&ic sufficiency depends on the ability to correctly classify or, alternatively, to correctly distinguish, on the basis of selected diagnostic characters, &e&bers of biological races. /his rule has been characteri,ed as being only 8a rule of thu&b9 3Groves, <>>@4. Indeed, it see&s that it often is not applied. +or e)a&ple, #e&sen 3<>;>4 notes that in ornithology its Capplication has been erratic at best.C /he author goes on to state6
It is not possible to tell ho0 &any of the subspecies currently recogni,ed in such sources 0ould :ualify as subspecies under the HG[ rule, but it is certain that &any subspecies, especially in North '&erica, 0ould not :ualify as valid ta)a under this rule, particularly those defined by &ensural differences. +ro& personal e)perience in atte&pting to use subspecies diagnoses, such as the -eys in the Birds of North and "iddle '&erica series 3ridg 0ay and +ried&ann ;?>;S;?G>4, I predict that &ore than HG[ of North '&erican subspecies ta)a deli&ited by &ensural data 0ould not survive application of the HG[ rule.

2hen it co&es to e&ploying this rule, there are a fe0 points to note6 3;4 there is no set nu&ber of characters to useB the characters, though, are often 0eighted by Pphylogenic infor&ation contentP or Pinfor&ation concerning ancestryP, 0ith those characters 0hich have a higher 0eight 3&ore phylogenic infor&ation4 dee&ed to be &ore suitableB 3<4 given a set of = races ', B, and C, the characteristics used to differentiate race ' fro& race B need not be the sa&e characteristics used to differentiate race ' fro& race CB pertaining to this point, "ayr and 'shloc- 3;?A?4 note6 C' characteristic by 0hich &e&bers of t0o ta)a agree but differ fro& a third ta)on is a ta)ono&ic characterCB 3=4 this rule has nu&erous, often discordant, interpretationsB 0hen applying it, results depend on the specific interpretation e&ployed. No0 given so&e fre:uently cited interpretations 3e.g., the &ultivariate interpretation discussed by S&ith et al. 3;??H4 or the correct classification interpretation -- 0hich also e&ploys &ultivariate analysis -- &entioned by others4, the !!# clearly :ualify as Cgeographic racesC. #eferring to the &ost lac-adaisical interpretation of the HG[ rule, Cavalli-Sfor,a and Bod&er 3;?HA4 noted6
N#Oaces could be called sub-species if 0e adopted for &an a criterion fro& syste&atic ,oology. /he criterion is that t0o or &ore groups beco&e sub-species 0hen HG percent or &ore of all individuals constituting the groups can be une:uivocally classified as belonging to a particular group.

7i-e0ise, 2right 3;?HK4 noted6

/here is also no :uestion, ho0ever, that populations that have long inhabited separated parts of the 0orld should, in general, be considered to be of different subspecies by the usual criterion that &ost individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection... It is, ho0ever, custo&ary to use the ter& race rather than subspecies for the &aJor subdivisions of the hu&an species as 0ell as for &inor ones. /he occurrence of a fe0 conspicuous differences, probably due to selection for adaptation to 0idely different environ&ental conditions, does not necessarily i&ply &uch difference in general. Nei and #oychoudhury 3;?H@4 have sho0n that the differences a&ong negroids, caucasoids, and &ongoloids in the protein and blood group loci are

slight co&pared 0ith those bet0een individuals 0ithin any one of the&. /here is disagree&ent on the nu&ber of &aJor races that should be recogni,ed. 't a &ini&u&, the 'ustraloids are added to the three referred to above.

Si&ply, hu&an individuals can be very reliably classified -- above the HG[ level -- and the !!# can be differentiated using &ultivariate techni:ues given a sufficient nu&ber of characters. +or applications of &ultivariate techni:ues to hu&an continental level races, readers are referred to, e.g., Irish 3;??K4, !ubbe et al. 3<>>?4, and #elethford, 3<>>?4. +or a discussion of characteristic differences bet0een selected races, readers are referred to, e.g., Ba-er 3;?H@4, Brues 3;??>4, and Gill 3;??K4. #eaders are also referred to the SesardicEs 3<>;>4 discussion6
Indeed, a :uic- loo- into the literature confir&s this. +or instance, a study that covered ;H populations over the 0orld and that relied on =@ different &easure&ents &anaged to assign ?K[ of the speci&ens to their correct &aJor racial group 3Brues ;??> , A4. 'nother &ore recent study had a success rate of K>[ in distinguishing bet0een '&erican 2hites and Blac-s, although it used Just t0o variables. 2ith seven variables, ho0ever, it reached the reliability of ?G[, and 0ith ;? variables the probability of correct classification rose to ?H[ 3.usley et al. <>>? 4. 'lso, esti&ating generally the reliability of attributing a given data point to one of the five racial categories, another tea& of e)perts calculated that under so&e realistic conditions it is sufficient to use as fe0 as ;= characteristics to have the posterior probability of the correct classification attain the value of ??[ 3$onigsberg et al.<>>?4.

/here have been so&e atte&pts to tighten up the HG[ ruleB for e)a&ple, #a&ey et al. 3<>>G4 discuss a ?>[ version, noting6
/he critical test of the original subspecies description 0as t0o-fold. +irst, the hypothesis of I. h. preblei being a uni:ue, s&aller subspecies relative to I. h. ca&pestris 0ould be reJected if the s-ulls of I. h. preblei 0ere not signiTcantly s&aller for the &aJority of s-ull &easure&ents. Second, 0e used 7%' to test uni:ueness 0ith the distinguishability criterion that e?>[ of the speci&ens be correctly classiTed to subspecies at Jac--nifed posterior probabilities e>.?G 32ehausen a #a&ey, <>>>4. /his una&biguous criterion re:uires that speci&ens be correctly classiTed 0ith a high degree of certainty using a &ultivariate analysis of shape.

Still, by this &ore stringent reading, the !!# 0ould &ost li-ely, unli-e &any of the unfortunate races of the PreblePs &eado0 Ju&ping &ouse, &eet this criterion. 2hat about other interpretations1 .ne such is the univariate one discussed by "ayr and 'shloc- 3;?A?4. By this, the HG[ in the HG[ rule is interpreted as i&plying a ?>[ nonoverlap in the population distributions of the diagnostic characters 3since at the point of intersection bet0een t0o distributions in 0hich HG[ of the &e&bers of one is separated fro& ?H[ of the &e&bers of the other, ?>[ of one population 0ill be separated fro& ?>[ of the other4. /his ?>[ non-overlap is translated into a Coefficient of %ifference 3C%4 of ;.<K, 0here6 C% V V3"b-"a4Q3SdaZS%b4 0here6 "V&ean S%V Standard %eviation a and b V populations

/his C% of ;.<K, in turn, is e:uivalent to a CohenPs d, or difference in standard deviations, of about <.GK 3assu&ing nor&ality and e:ual variances4. 2hen dealing 0ith &ore than t0o populations, one &ust naturally select sets of diagnostic traits such that, e.g., population ; and < can be differentiated on the basis of trait ', populations ; and = can be differentiated on the basis of trait B, et cetera.. 's for the !!#, one probably could create diagnostic sets 0ere one to loo- for characteristics. +or e)a&ple, belo0 presents the diagnostic standard offered by "ayr and 'shloc- 3;?A?4 -- in addition to alternative :uantifications of this standard -- along 0ith C% values for the traits reported by $eita 3;??=4. 3/he present authors too- the liberty of rena&ing the populations discussed46

Since there are five populations, there are ten pair-0ise co&parisons. .n the basis of these five traits, three population pairs &ore than &eet "ayrPs C% criteriaB another three nearly &eet it. If one 0anted to, one undoubtedly could sort through all characters and construct diagnostic sets for these populations such that the ;.<K C% criteria 0as &et for each of the ten population co&parisons. /here is no shortage of typically used diagnostic characters to loo- at. Gill 3;??K4 lists so&e6

.n average, though, the !!# character differences fall far belo0 the univariate standard. +or e)a&ple, 0e loo-ed at the 2.2. !o0ells Cranio&etric %ata Set Nhttp6QQ0eb.ut-.eduQ\auerbachQ!.27.ht&O and found, based on H; cranial &easures, an average Caucasoid-Negroid C% of less that >.GB of the traits, only ;G[ had a C% above ;.>B these results 0ere consistent 0ith those reported by Sarich and "iele 3<>>@4, 0ho ended up e&phasi,ing the largeness of the differences relative to those bet0een other pri&ate sub-specific populations. So do the !!# represent hu&an ,oological subspecies1 ItPs difficult for the present authors to adJudicate given the a&biguous nature of the for&al racial recognition criteria. 3/here are no for&al for&al recognition criteria.4 %espite substantial disagree&ent 0ith regards to the standards, there does see& to be a general feeling, both in ta)ono&y and in conservation biology, that so&e subdivisions of a species &a-e for bad subspecies 0hile others do not. In <ngulate Taxonomy, Groves and Grubb 3<>;;4 playfully contrast subspecies that are CBadC 0ith those that are C*glyC 3by 0hich they really &ean CgoodC or CacceptableC, given the intrinsically CuglyC nature of sub-specific divisions46
/hese subspecies &ay be differentiated into the Good, the Bade, and the *gly. /he Good subspecies are ;>>[ diagnosable, hence they are actually distinct species &as:uerading as &ere subspecies...

/he Bad subspecies are points along a cline, or are differentiated at very lo0 fre:uency levels, or si&ply are based on one or t0o individuals that see&ed outstanding at the ti&e. /he sa&ples that they represent &ay be interesting for population genetics or in so&e other respect, but they have no ta)ono&ic standing. /he *gly subspecies are the ones 0hich are left over. Subse:uent studies have sho0n that they can be differentiated fro& other subspecies 3i.e., fro& other geographic seg&ents of the sa&e species4 at high fre:uencies, but they are not absolutely differentiated or diagnosable. /he dile&&a is, 0hat to do 0ith the&1 /here does see& to be so&e advantages in dignifying the& 0ith a trino&ial, especially for conservation purposes, but as these *gly subspecies are arbitrary and unfalsifiable, one cannot insist upon it. Nonetheless, this is 0hat 0e have in &ind 0hen 0e recogni,e subspecies in this boo-, unless 0e specifically state that they are provisional.

/he :uestion 0hich 0e &ust as-, then, is6 %o the !!# :ualify as ugly or Just plain bad subspecies1 2e can atte&pt to ans0er this using "ayr and 'shloc-Ps five considerations6 3a4 degree of difference, 3b4 presence or absence of clinal variation, 3c4 presence or absence of chec-er-board type characters, 3d4 discordant variation of different characters, 3e4 and degree of isolation 2ith regards to 3a4, as noted above, the !## &eet the HG[ rule standards by at least so&e interpretations. 3#eaders can decide for the&selvesB for various interpretations of this rule, they are referred to the discussions of '&adon 3;?@?4, "ayr and 'shloc- 3;?A?4, and S&ith et al. 3;??H44. /his said, 0hen it co&es to "ayrPs 3&ultiple4 univariate &ethod, one has to fish around for sufficiently differentiated characteristics. 's such, the !!# donPt indisputably &eet this criterion. "oving on, the !!# also sho0 a relative lac- of clinal variation in some characters 0hich have high phylogenic infor&ation content e.g., craniofacial &orphology 3see, for e)a&ple, #elethford, ;??@B <>>?4B additionally, 0hile it is fre:uently i&puted that these populations for& a population continuu&, this is not true, as the genetic data de&onstrates 3see the results of #osenberg, <>>G, <>;;4. /his all noted, itPs not clear to the present authors ho0 to assess the overall degree of clinality in ter&s of Pta)ono&ic significanceP. 's for the third consideration, the !!# do not have a chec-er-board type of trait distributions. 's for discordant 3i.e., disagree&ent in4 variation of different genetically conditioned phenotypic characteristics, so&e characteristics sho0 substantial discordance and yet so&e donPtB the latter allo0, as a result of the correlation bet0een characters, accurate classification, despite relatively lo0 bet0een population divergence. %id our !!# once sho0 a sufficient degree of isolation1 /he present authors 0ere unable to locate a :uantification of PsufficientP and so 0ere unable to deter&ine this &atter. If 0e adopt the +st statistic as a &easure of isolation, since +st is inversely proportional to gene flo0 3given various assu&ptions4 3!a0-s, (. 3<>;;, Nove&ber <K4, 0e can say, given the interpretive standards proposed by Se0all 2right, that the a&ount of isolation bet0een the !!# 0as &oderateB see, though, 2hitloc- et. al. 3;???4Ps cautionary note about using +st values to assess the degree of gene flo0 bet0een populations within species. 2e can put the a&ount of !!# isolation -- or at least the +st value -- into cross species conte)t. /e&pleton 3;??K4 did this using "t%N' for non!u&an species 3bet0een subspecies4 and &icrosatellites and #+7Ps for hu&ans 3bet0een continental populations4. /he +st values range fro& about >.>?G to >.?GB of the ;= species he presented, hu&ans ca&e in ;>th place in ter&s of interpopulation +st values. *sing the sa&e &ethod as /e&pleton 3;??K4, si&ilar results 0ould be found

using the values for the ;H ungalate species 0ith "t%N' +st values presented by 7oren,en 3<>>K4B of the ;H, !u&ans 0ould have placed ;@th. /here is a proble& 0ith /e&pleton 3;??K4Ps analysis, thoughB he &ade a Iebras to 7ions co&parison. "t%N' +st values 0ere used for non-!u&ans, 0hile autoso&al &icrosatellites and #+7Ps +st values 0ere used for hu&ans. /his is proble&atic for t0o reasons6 3;4 "t%N' +st values are generally higher than autoso&al values, and 3<4 &ale based dispersal, co&&on in &any species, can elevating "t%N' +st. 2ith regards to the for&er point, "erri0ether et al. 3;??;4 3t0o esti&ates presented4, Stone-ing et al. 3;??>4, (orde et al. 3;??K4, (orde et al. 3<>>>4, 2ilder et al. 3<>>@4, and 2ang et al. 3<>;=4 report !u&an "t%N' +st or Gst values ranging fro& >.;@ 32ilder4 to >.@A 3"erri0ether et al.4 0ith a &ean of about >.<= 0hen using the average of the values given by "erri0ether et al. 3;??;4B these esti&ates are substantially higher than the autoso&al based one used by /e&pleton 3;??K4. 2ith regards to the second point, a nu&ber of authors have 0arned about the influence of &ale-biased dispersion 3e.g., "elnic-, et al. ;??=4 on "t%N' +st values. +or hu&ans there is no evidence of such dispersion 3if anything, dispersion 0as &ore pro&inent a&ongst fe&ales4B hence, Seielstad, et al. 3;??K4 reported a 5chro&oso&e continental +st value of >.AG versus a "t%N' +st of >.;? and 2ang, et al. 3<>;=4 report a 5-chro&oso&e continental +st of >.=A versus a "t%N' +st of >.;HB though, see 2ilder et al. 3<>>@4. 2hatever the case, cross species differences in se) related &igration &a-es "t%N' 3and 5-chro&oso&e4 co&parisons proble&atic. In addition to "t%N', autoso&al &icrosatellite diversity is co&&only studied in species. 's such, 0e can co&pare autoso&al &icrosatellite +st values. /o do this, 0e conducted a literature search and located studies on <@ species in 0hich the autoso&al &icrosatellite genetic differentiation bet0een the speciesP subspecies 0as reported. /he results are sho0n belo0. /he authorsP opinion concerning subspecies status is noted.

3#eferences not listed belo0.4 Ne)t, 0e revie0ed the data concerning hu&an continental populations. /he results are sho0n belo0. /he nu&ber of loci used, the sa&ple si,es, and the nu&ber of !u&an continental races co&pared are noted for reference. /he values range fro& >.>@> to >.;@B the n-0eighted 3by loci and sa&ple si,e4 average is >.>GG.

!u&ans 3based on continental races4 ca&e <; out of <G in ter&s of genetic differentiation. /hese results, then, are :uite si&ilar to those found by /e&pleton 3;??K4. !o0ever, the situation is co&plicated since, as "eir&ans and !endric- 3<>;;4, a&ong others have noted, co&&on &easures of population differentiation such as +st can be &isleading 0hen it co&es to &a-ing cross species co&parisons concerning population structure because +stQGst values are dependent on and constrained by the intra-population heterogeneity 3genetic diversity4. Si&ply6

30here !t is the total genetic diversity and !s is the 0ithin population genetic diversity 3or e)pected genetic diversity4 ergo, +st_ ;-E)pected !etero,ygosity 3!s4 /he +st value bet0een populations in a species is li&ited by 0ithin population e)pected genetic diversity. +or our <@ species 0ith recogni,ed subspecies, the correlation bet0een +st and e)pected genetic diversity 0as r V ->.GH4. Plotting +st versus !s, 0e get6

/his relation 0as very si&ilar to that reported by !eller and Siegis&und 3<>>?4 and "eir&ans and !edric 3<>;;4, though neither research tea& li&ited consideration to species 0ith for&ally recogni,ed races. Concerning the relation bet0een +S/ values and !etero,ygosity, "eir&ans and !edric 3<>;;4 noted6
Notice that the observed range of +S/ is al0ays less than !S and that the range of +S/ beco&es very s&all 0hen !S is large. +or e)a&ple 0hen !S V >.?, a value that is co&&only encountered for &icrosatellite &ar-ers, the &a)i&u& possible value of +S/ is >.;. Such a value of +S/ is generally interpreted as representing a rather 0ea- population structure. !o0ever, here it represents the case 0ith &a)i&u& differentiation a&ong the populations, &eaning that the populations do not share any alleles at all.

In short, species 0ith high 0ithin population diversity 0ill necessarily sho0 lo0 bet0een population +st and +st analog values, regardless of the actual bet0een population diversity as inde)ed by the nu&ber of shared alleles. 3#eaders are referred to (a-obsson, et al. 3<>;=4 for a discussion of this &atter 0ith regards to hu&an populations.4 +or !u&ans there is indeed high 0ithin continental race genetic diversity. Based on Pe&berton et al. 3<>;=4Es list of &icrosatellite !s values for <AH populations, 0e can co&pute the follo0ing continental !s values along 0ith the average of the&6

/he average !s value 0as >.H< 3&eaning that the &a)i&u& possible +st is >.<K4. /his found !s value corresponds to a +QGst value of \>.>G based on our regression line using <@ subspeciated species, the sa&e as that based on !eller and Siegis&undPs 3<>>?4 regression line using @= species. /hus, the lo0 &icrosatellite +st value bet0een !u&an continental races is about 0hat one 0ould e)pect to find 0ere one dealing 0ith subspecies in a species 0hich had as &uch intra population diversity as the !u&an species does. 'nother 0ay to loo- at this is to co&pare &icrosatellite genetic differentiation values based on statistics designed to ta-e into account !s 3e.g., (ostPs %4 and those not so designed 3'". ', NeiPs +st, 2eir and Coc-erha&Ps +S/4. Belo0 are esti&ates fro& Sethura&an 3<>;=4 based on the !G%P-CEP!. 's can be seen, by ta-ing into account !s. either (ostPs % is inflated or the others are deflated. 2hatever the case, the interpretation of the divergence statistic values is not straightfor0ard.

So, 0hat conclusion should 0e dra01 .urs is si&ply that the situation is not clear cut. 2hether or not the !!# once sho0ed a CsufficientC degree of isolation to &eet this criterion, given post ;?G>s standards, is debatable. "ore generally, based on "ayr and 'shloc-Ps five criteria, ta-en together, 0e are incapable of ruling against the for&al recognition of the !!#. 3+or references, "ayr, hi&self, concluded that the !!# represented ,oological subspecies on the account that

they Cagree in &ost characteristics 0ith the geographic races of ani&alsC4. /o help advance this debate, 0e &ight add another di&ension to Groves and Grubb 3<>;;4Ps Bad and *gly 3i.e., acceptable4 dichoto&y, one that describes the classifierEs disposition6 conservative and liberal. /he present authorsP opinion is that the !!# :ualify as acceptable hu&an ,oological subspecies 0hen 3ta)ono&ically4 liberal interpretations of the various criteria are applied. 2e Judge this to be the case, because 0e 0ere able to locate a nu&ber of recogni,ed subspecies that less 0ell &et the various discussed criteria. 2e also feel that by a &ore 3ta)ono&ically4 conservative reading of the criteria, the !!# 0ould not. 2e i&agine, also, that they probably 0ould not :ualify as Uevolutionarily significant unitsE 3ES*4 as defined by #yder 3;?KA4, 0ho notes that not all subspecies are created e:ual or are e:ually deserving of conservation efforts -- at least, given available funding. 2ould they :ualify as "anage&ent *nits 3"*41 Possibly. In the future, ne0 conventions or ne0 interpretations of old ones &ight be established. 'nd interpretative rules &ight be tightened up such that even by liberal standards, no hu&an races past or present could :ualify for for&al racial recogni,ed. But, as it stands of <>;@, at least by liberal interpretations of the e)isting conventions, the classic !!# races can :ualify. #egardless, it should be clear that such criteria and rules for for&al recognition -- 0hile fun to debate -- are arbitrary in the sense discussed by 2ilson and Bro0n 3;?G=4. Given this arbitrariness, ,oological subspecies, by &ost technical usages of the ter&, are not Cnatural -indsCB rather, they are, Csocial constructsC in the &ost constructive &anner. Given this, it see&s particularly odd that so&e opponents of biological race sta-e their case against the PrealityP of hu&an races on these racesP ability to &eet conte&porary conventional ta)ono&ic standards for for&al racial recognition. IV-6. 6RR and Cluster #iscordance So&e have argued against &eaningful biological races on the grounds of genetic cluster discordance. +or e)a&ple, BarbuJani et al. 3<>;=4 state6
!o0ever, further atte&pts to identify &aJor hu&an groups by clustering genotypes have yielded inconsistent results. %ifferent nu&bers of groups and different distributions of genotypes 0ithin such groups, 0ere observed 0hen different datasets 0ere analy,ed 3=>, @;S@@4. /he inconsistencies in these results refect a 0ell--no0n feature of hu&an diversity, that is, different genetic poly&orphis& are distributed over the 0orld in a discordant &anner 3@@4....It co&es as no surprise, then, that if 0e loo- bac- at the &any racial catalogs co&piled since the ;Hth century, and at &ore recent geno&ic analyses 3co&pare #efs ;?, =<, =@, +igure ;4, the only point they see& to have in co&&on is that each of the& contradicts all the others 3@?, G>4.

+ith regards to their discussion of contradictor" classifications0 we resu)e that Barbu4ani et al. :BC=F; are restricting discussion to a s ecific focus0 s ecificall" to the continental one. That is0 we assu)e that the"0 being o ulation geneticists0 a reciate that nested classifications aren<t contradictor" ones0 that there is no contradiction inherent0 for exa) le0 in being both hu)an and )a))al or Irish and Caucasoid. As such0 we inter ret Barbu4ani et al. :BC=F; as arguing that the 3)an" racial catalogs3 on the continental le.el0 gi.en so)e s ecific grain of focus0 conflict. As discussed in section IV-#0 we don<t see this. To illustrate our oint further0 below we show the results fro) K studies which identified continental le.el clusters :at %LJ or %LK;. The studies used different clustering )ethods :'CA0 5tructure0 (ra e0 TI'5;0 different loci0 and different nu)bers of loci but )anaged to roduce fairl" consistent genetic clusters.

2e grant, of course, that genetic clusters based on different &ethods and using different loci arenPt perfectly concordant 0ith each other at a given grain of focus. +or e)a&ple, (a-obsson, et al. 3<>;=4 present the follo0ing trees based on SNPs, !aplotypes, and CN s 6

2ith regard to CN s, Bayesian cluster analysis separated populations fro& 'frica, Eurasia and East 'sia plus .ceania plus the '&ericas -- three out of five of the !!#. "oreover, so&e south 'sian groups 0ere grouped 0ith 'ustraloids. So analyses arenPt al0ays concordant. But 0e reiterate that this is not a proble&, since biological races are not genetic clustersB rather, they are natural populations 0hich are inferred based on clusters of phenotypic and genetic data. If one desired the &ost accurate classification sche&e possible, one 0ould apply cluster analysis using 0hole geno&es. /his 0ould eli&inate cluster discordance resulting fro& the use of discordant sets of genes. Such results see& to vindicate the /#C7 and the !!# discussed above 3e.g., "cEvoy et al., <>;>4. 2hatever the case, 0ith regards to the issue of 0hether !!# are evolutionary biological races, BarbuJani et al.Ps 3<>;=4 argu&ent is 0ea-. Cluster discordance could be a proble& for the for&al recognition of continental races, since a high degree of concordance of variation is one of the criteria for such recognition 3discussed in section I -G4. But this in another &atter. #egarding it, unfortunately, as noted prior, 0e 0ere unable to locate a :uantitative rule that 0ould allo0 us to deter&ine if the degree of concordance is CenoughC. 's such, a decision co&es do0n to a subJective evaluation. In agree&ent 0ith Ernst "ayr, 0ho developed and populari,ed the geographic race concept and 0ho presu&ably had a good understanding of this concept, ours is that the concordance of character for !!# is sufficient 3for for&al racial recognition4. I -I. !!# and /a)ono&y6 %oes the /#C7 #epresent a alid Evolutionary Classification Sche&e1 It has further been argued that the /#C7 doesnPt represent a valid ta)ono&ic classification sche&e. 7ong et al. 3<>>?4, for e)a&ple, argued6
'lthough it is logically consistent to group populations by relationship, the nested pattern of genetic diversity in the E!" disagrees 0ith the traditional anthropological classiTcations that placed continental populations at the sa&e level of classiTcation 3i.e., race4. ' classiTcation that ta-es into account evolutionary relationships and the nested pattern of diversity 0ould re:uire that Sub-Saharan 'fricans are not a race because the &ost e)clusive group that includes all Sub-

Saharan 'frican populations also includes every non-Sub-Saharan 'frican population 3+igs. <B and @B4.

/he clai& is that certain !!# are nested 0ithin each other and that this nestedness precludes these races fro& being placed in the sa&e classification sche&e along 0ith other !!#. /he argu&ent is illustrated belo0 by the third diagra& to the right 0hich 0as ta-en fro& Ca&pbell and /ish-off 3<>;>4. In all three diagra&s, one sees the sa&e five &ain !!# e&erge 3at so&e point in ti&e4. In the last one, one notices that out-of'fricans ste&&ed fro& a sub-Saharan 'frican branch. "oreover, "ongoloids, '&erindians, and 'ustraloids branched off fro& Caucasoids.

'pparently, those 0ho &a-e 7ong et al.Ps argu&ent are not fa&iliar 0ith the conventions of the evolutionary classificatory school, specifically concerning paraphyletic groups. /his issue 0as discussed in section I-G. /he argu&ent of 7ong et. al. 3<>>?4 &ight be a proble& for cladistic races -- yet see 'ndreasen 3<>>@4 -- but it certainly isnPt one for an evolutionary based sche&e. It is curious that 7ong et al. argue against traditional racial classifications on the grounds that they donPt ta-e into account Cevolutionary relationships1% .bviously, a different sense of the ter& 3presu&ably a cladistic one4 is being used then as used by evolutionary classifiers 3see "ayr and Boc-Ps 3<>><4 discussion of the &eaning of the sa&e ter&4.

Another oint worth noting is that there is a non sequitur in.ol.ed in -ong et al.Ds :BCC>; argu)ent. The authors )aintain that there are no hu)an races on the grounds that traditional classifications are inconsistent with taxonomic con.entions. Met0 as ointed out elsewhere0 one can treat races as units in a nu)ber of different biological research rogra)s. Taxono)" is 4ust one such rogra). 5aid grou ings of races )ight be in.alid0 in a sense0 in one research rogra) but not another. 5ubsub-s ecific natural o ulations0 in general0 are not .alid :in the sense of for)all" recogni9ed; taxono)ic units des ite being .alid units in other areas0 e.g.0 o ulation genetics. This oint is nothing new8 one of the alleged in.entors of biological race0 I))anuel %ant0 in his re l" to ,ohann (orster0 )ade .irtuall" the sa)e oint0 concerning race as a general biological .ersus taxono)ic unit of anal"sis0 nearl" two and a Iuarter centuries ago. I -(. 8Significant9 #acial %ifferences It is fre:uently argued that there can be no socially i&portant congenital differences bet0een the hu&an biological races because there is 8too little9 genetic variation bet0een the&. +or e)a&ple, Bro0n and 'r&elago 3<>>;4 state6
N/Ohe evidence against genetically &ediated differences in behavior along racial lines is over0hel&ing 3/able ;4. +irst of all, a host of studies, beginning 0ith those by 7e0ontin<@ in ;?H< and &ost recently by BarbuJani and colleagues in ;??H, have sho0n that the a&ount of hu&an genetic diversity that is attributable to race is only about G[ to ;>[. +ollo0ing this, any particular 8population9 includes roughly KG[ or &ore of the total hu&an genetic diversity.

'nd .ssorio 3<>>?4 notes6

+inally, it is crucial to ree&phasi,e that the a&ount of genetic variation bet0een groups is very s&all co&pared to the KG to ?G percent of variation found 0ithin hu&an groups.... /he vast &aJority of hu&an genetic variation is bet0een individuals, including individuals 0ho can be assigned to the sa&e racial, ethnic, or national group. Because hu&ans have high 0ithin-group genetic variation, genes are unli-ely to e)plain average differences in ID test scores of different racial groups.

Since 0e dra0 the obvious distinction bet0een the e)istence of biological races and the e)istence of socially i&portant differences bet0een these races, argu&ents li-e the t0o above 0ould be of no interest to us 0ere they not, for so&e reason, incorporated into argu&ents against the e)istence of races the&selves. .ne relatively sophisticated version6 belief in hu&an biological races is potentially dangerous, so 0e should only recogni,e these races if there are really i&portant genetic differences bet0een the&B no such differences could possibly e)ist, since the variation bet0een hu&an races is very s&allB therefore, 0e shouldnEt recogni,e the e)istence of race, and should instead assert that they do not e)ist. /hough bi,arre, this argu&ent, if not in so &any 0ords, is co&&onB $itcher 3<>>H4, for e)a&ple, elegantly states6
/he challenge for so&eone 0ho intends to defend a biological approach to hu&an races is to develop a si&ilar account for the utility of pic-ing out those inbred lineages that descend fro& populations once geographically separated, in 0hich, as a result of the separation, there are differences in superTcial phenotypic traits, characteristics 0hich, despite their superTciality, are salient for hu&an beings... as the researchers point out, ?= to ?G percent of hu&an genetic variation is found 0ithin the clusters 3rather than bet0een clusters4B each cluster, then, is itself genetically :uite heterogeneous.... /he obvious ans0er is that hypotheses about genes, about

genetic differences and genetic si&ilarities, play i&portant e)planatory roles in addressing :uestions that &atter to us, so that division on a genetic basis yields categories that are &ore valuable than, say, dividing people up according to the curvature of their eyebro0s or the length of ti&e for 0hich they can stand on one leg. 5et here 0e should tread carefully, for the e&phatic disavo0al of racial essences already signals the fact that the clusters de&arcated on the basis of genetic si&ilarity are not going to play a signiTcant role in the e)planation of shared phenotypic features or susceptibilities to various types of disease N.O

"ore crudely, a recent editorial in 2ature 3<>;=4 tells us6

+or instance, in light of increasing evidence that race is biologically &eaningless, research into genetic traits that underlie differences in intelligence bet0een races, or that predispose so&e races to act &ore aggressively than others, 0ill produce little.

.f course, one can only argue against the e)istence of socially i&portant genetic differences bet0een biological races if one first defines and recogni,es biological races in the first place, then sho0s that there are 3or could be4 no such differences bet0een the&. .ne could argue that groups co&&only identified as 8races9 do not correspond 0ith biological races thus defined, but this provides no leverage in arguing that there are no significant genetic differences bet0een the groups co&&only identified as 8races9.. Because &any socially i&portant traits are highly heritable, and because the variation in these traits is significant, there 0ill be nu&erous 8socially constructed9 subpopulations bet0een 0hich there e)ist socially significant congenital differencesB there is, at least, no a priori reason 0hy they could not e)ist. $no0ing nothing else, one 0ould treat these groupings as arbitrary, 8socially constructed9 subpopulationsB the probability 3again, -no0ing nothing else4 that any differences bet0een socially constructed subpopulations 3or rather bet0een the subpopulations and the population &ean4 is &ore conditioned by genetics than not is a function of the heritability of the trait in the population. /his is &erely a restate&ent of the behavioral genetic default6 0hen the heritability of a trait is high in a population, the difference bet0een an arbitrarily chosen subpopulation and the population &ean 0ill probably be &ore genetically conditioned than less 3see /al, <>>? for proof concerning individual differences4. /o argue against this probabilistic conclusion, one &ust provide evidence for 0hy a specific subpopulation is different. In this case, 0hat is atypical about our socially recogni,ed races that &a-es the& unli-e, e.g., educational groupings1 .r6 0hat is atypical about the deviation that &a-es it unli-e typical deviations fro& the &ean1 2ere 0e to socially construct groups, then select ones for 0hich there 0ere appreciable differences in so&e highly heritable trait, it is &ore li-ely than not that the bet0een-group differences in that trait 0ould be partially genetically conditioned. In the case of s-in color6 'rgentinians versus Colo&biansB North !e&ispherians versus South !e&ispheriansB /heravada Buddhists versus "ahayana BuddhistsB curly-haired versus straight-haired people 3in the global conte)t4B 0ealthy "e)icans versus poor "e)icans. In so&e instances the group differences 3bet0een the pairs of arbitrarily socially constructed groups4 0ould be co&pletely unrelated to geneticsB and 0hether the &aJority of the pairs 0ould e)hibit genetic differences 0ould depend on the precise heritability esti&ate of the trait in the populations in :uestion. But it is clear that social constructionis& per se is not inconsistent 0ith bet0een-group hereditarianis&, so 0hen it co&es to 8race,9 0hat is the argu&ent against probable racial differences in so&e highly heritable trait1

/he argu&ent &ust be grounded in the clai& that race is not an arbitrarily constructed groupB that there is so&ething about the criteria for racial delineation that &a-e it i&probable that there e)ist genetic differences in 0hatever specific trait. /he social construction of race tends to increase the nu&ber of possible avenues by 0hich genetic differences can arise F and thus to increase the a priori probability that bet0een-group differences are genetic, given that genetic differences 0ithin groups e)ist. /hat is, to the e)tent that congenital race differences are :uestionable, they are :uestionable not because race is an arbitrary social construct, but because 3i4 race is delineated in ter&s of a specific variable 3typically geographic ancestry4 and 3ii4 it is :uestionable that the trait in :uestion 0ould vary congenitally by this variable. /he entire 8social construct9 line of argu&entation either refutes itself or begs the :uestion of 0hether, in fact, there are socially significant differences bet0een the hu&an races. 2e &ust no0 investigate the clai& that there cannot be socially significant congenital differences bet0een biological races. .f course, differences are possible in the sense that it 0as not preordained that evolution 0ould produce hu&an natural populations 0ith e:ual genetic potential for the traits conte&poraneously dee&ed to be valuable. Even the radical egalitarian Steven (ay Gould 3;?K@, p. SS4 agreed 0ith this6 8E:uality is a contingent fact of !istory.9 2hat 0e are investigating is the clai& that there cannot be differences because there is 8too little9 genetic variation. /his argu&ent is so confused and fallacious that it is difficult to -no0 0here to begin. 2e 0ill briefly e)plain 0hy it is unsound and 0hy, if the argu&ent is granted, it leads to the opposite conclusion dra0n by the opponents of biological race. 's for the soundness of the argu&ent6 ';. Genetic variability as inde)ed by +st and +st analogs is not a particularly accurate inde) of the &agnitude of the genetic influences on trait differences bet0een populations. +or e)a&ple, 7ong and $ittles 3<>>=4 found a bet0een-population +st of ;;[ based on a sa&ple of hu&an populationsB 0hen they added chi&pan,ees to the set of hu&an populations, the bet0een-population +st rose only to ;K[. "ountain and #isch 3<>>@4, citing this e)a&ple, noted thatUUa lo0 +S/ esti&ate i&plies little about the degree to 0hich genes contribute to bet0een-group differences.9 '<. 's noted prior, +st and +st analog values are constrained by the level of 0ithin population genetic diversity. +or e)a&ple, in their table ; and <, cu et al. 3<>>K4, give e)pected hetero,ygosity 3!s4 values for (apanese 3(P/4, Chinese 3C!B4, *yghurs 3*IG4, Europeans 3CE*4, and 5orubi 35#I4 based on <>;HH SNPs. /he !s 0as >.=>, &eaning that the &a)i&u& possible SNP +st value -- the value that 0ould be found if populations had no ,ero alleles in co&&on -- 0as >.H>, not ;.> as co&&only stated 3e.g,, see6 +ish, <>;=4. /he upshot is that !s dependent &easures of genetic diversity 3+st, Gst, st, QST, etc.) can underestimate the "true" genetic diversity between populations when !s is &odest to high. '=. 2hat is relevant to raciation is the variation in specific genes, not the average variation across all genetic loci. Genetic variation at a typical locus 0ill have no functional conse:uence since a typical locus is selectively neutral. 's such, average genetic variation tends to &easure neutral &utations and so inde) the ti&e of divergence bet0een populations 3Sarich and "iele, <>><4. 's a result, the average genetic variation across loci does not allo0 one to 0ell predict the a&ount of differentiation in loci that

0ere not selectively neutral -- the very ones that are relevant 0hen it co&es to discussions of socially significant genetically &ediated differences. 2ith regards to these, one &ust loo- at differentiation in specific genetic regions 3e.g., 2u and Ihang, <>;;4. /o give a concrete e)a&ple in 0hich total genetic differentiation is unindicative of differentiation 0ith respect to specific traits6 at their e)tre&es, northern and southern Europeans differ in height by appro)i&ately one standard deviation 3/urchin, et al., <>;>B supple&entary data4. /hese height differences are substantially genetically deter&ined 3/urchin, et al., <>;>4. 5et average European interpopulation SNP +st values are trivial at >.>>; to >.>; 3/ian, et al. <>>?4. Even if 0e ignore points '; to '= and grant the i&plicit pre&ise of the Ctoo little varianceC argu&ent --that the ratio of genetically &ediated phenotypic variability in traits c, 5, and I is roughly concordant 0ith the ratio of average genetic variability -- 0e see that the argu&ent lends itself to the opposite conclusion as that dra0n by biological race antagonists. /his is for the follo0ing reasons6 B;. /he &agnitude of genetic differentiation depends on the biological populations in :uestion. It &a-es no sense to argue that differences bet0een regional biological races 3e.g., Europeans and 2est 'fricans4 cannot be genetically conditioned on the account of supposedly s&all differences bet0een continental races 3e.g., Caucasoids and Negroids4. By classic population genetic standards, the differences bet0een &any regional races are C&oderateC to 8great9. /he &agnitudes of the genetic differentiation in SNPs bet0een so&e regional races are sho0n belo06

B<. /he &agnitude of the &easured bet0een populations genetic differentiation varies by the class of loci analy,ed 3and the statistic used4B for e)a&ple, continental &icrosatelite, SNPs, and "t%N' +st values are typically around, respectively, >.>G, >.;<, and >.<>. Part of this variation in &easured genetic variation is attributable to loci variation in !s 3(a-obsson, et al. <>;=4. 2ere one to try to infer the &agnitude of genetically conditioned phenetic variation fro& typical inde)es of genetic variation 3e.g., +st values4, a practice not reco&&ended by the present authors, one should use the class of loci that &ost li-ely underpins the relevant phenetic variation. +or e)a&ple, since variation in single-nucleotide poly&orphis&s e)plains variation in &any interesting polygenetic traits

such height and intelligence 3e.g., 5ang et al., <>;>B %avies, et al. <>;;4, one should atte&pt to infer genetic &ediation of phenetic differences based on coding SNPs. +or a brea-do0n of SNP variance by classes, readers are referred to supple&entary /able < of Barreiro et al. 3<>>K4. B=. /he &agnitude of SNPs genetic differentiation, as inde)ed by +st, is not s&all, even between continental races, according to population genetic and social scientific standards. /he &edian continental race SNP +st value is said to be around >.;< 37i et al., <>>KB Ca&pbell and /rish-off, <>>KB Elhai-, <>;<B Bhatia et al. <>;=44, 0ith the esti&ated &agnitudes varying so&e0hat due to the choice of specific loci, the &ethod of aggregation e&ployed, the +st esti&ators used, and so onB see6 Bhatia et al. 3<>;=4. 2ith regards to population genetics standards, Se0all 2right, 0ho helped develop the +st inde), noted that such a &agnitude signified &oderate genetic differentiation. By his scale, 0hich has been fre:uently cited 3e.g., .liveira, et al., <>>HB Ihang and /ier, <>>?46
0 to 0.05 indicates little genetic di erentiation! 0.05 to 0."5 indicates moderate genetic di erentiation, 0."5 to 0.#5 indicates great genetic di erentiation, 0.#5 indicate very great genetic di erentiation. 32right, S. ;?HK. Evolution and the genetics of populations4

's inde)ed by SNP +st, then, 0e could infer, based on typical population genetic standards, &oderate genetic differentiation bet0een continental races. 2ith regards to social scientific standards, if 0e naively translate +st esti&ates into standardi,ed differences, 0e see that differences are non-trivial. If one assu&es nor&ality and e:ual variances and directly converts a ;<[ bet0een-population variation into a standardi,ed difference, one gets a value of d \ >.H@. ..................... Given the la0 of total variance6 ,V <3s:rt33aQ0444 ,Vbet0een group standardi,ed differenceB aV ratio of variance bet0een to 0ithin populationsB 0V variance 0ithin populations. ........................ +or reference, a CohenEs d of >.< to >.= is typically said to be 8s&all,9 0hile a CohenPs d of >.K to infinity is said to be 8largeC. B@. 'll of these esti&ates are arguably lo0, since 0e are dealing 0ith genetic variability bet0een diploid populations 3!arpending, <>><B Sarich and "iele, <>>@4. /he ;<[ SNPs variance bet0een continental races refers to the total bet0een continental race variance and not to Just the &ore relevant bet0een individual, bet0een race variance. /his variance includes genetic variance of both the intra-individual and inter-individual sortB arguably, only the latter is relevant 0hen it co&es to discussions of heritable bet0een population phenotypic differences, as bet0een population phenetic differences represent aggregations of inter, not intra, individual differences. /o illustrate the point6 Nishiya&a et al. 3<>;<4 deco&posed the SNP genetic variance for various (apanese populations into inter-subpopulational, inter-individual, and intraindividual variance. /hey found that bet0een ?A.H and ??.A[ of the variance 0as located within individuals. 2hen intra-individual variance 0as partitioned out, roughly

the sa&e percent of genetic variance 0as located bet0een individuals and bet0een subpopulations as bet0een individuals and 0ithin subspopulations. /he deco&position is sho0n in the table belo0. .f course, &ost of the variance 0as still Cinter-individualC in the sense of inter- plus intraindividual 3i.e.., intrapopulational4. 3In the sa&e 0ay, of course, &ost diversity, in general, is Cinter-racialC in the sense of inter racial plus inter individual plus intra individual.4 It Just 0asnPt &ostly inter-individual in the sense of e)clusively bet0een individuals. %oes this &atter1 2ell, it casts the oft referenced genetic variance ratios in a different light. 'nd it is relevant if onePs argu&ent is that phenetic differences bet0een individuals bet0een groups couldnPt be substantially congenitally conditioned because there is Ctoo littleC bet0een group genetic variation relative to that bet0een individuals 0ithin groups.

3+ro&6 Nishiya&a, /., $ishino, !., Su,u-i, S., 'ndo, #., Nii&ura, !., *e&ura, !., ... a /ana-a, !. 3<>;<4. %etailed 'nalysis of (apanese Population Substructure 0ith a +ocus on the South0est Islands of (apan. 'lo5 one, =3@4, e=G>>>.4 Can the Ctoo little genetic varianceC argu&ent be salvaged1 It cannot. /o avoid a racialhereditarian conclusion, it &ust be discarded F but ho01 .ne could, citing the points &ade in '; to '=, argue that there is little correlation bet0een average genetic variability and genetically &ediated phenotypic variability. But this isnPt the case at least 0ith regard to &any classes of phenetic differences. #elethford 3<>>?4, for e)a&ple, notes6
Several studies have loo-ed at esti&ates of +S/ based on the global cranio&etric dataset originally collected by !o0ells 3;?H=, ;?K?, ;??G, ;??A4, and consisting of GH cranio&etric variables &easured on &ale and fe&ale crania fro& <A populations 3as 0ell as &ales only on four additional sa&ples4. *sing an average heritability of >.GG, #elethford 3;??@, <>><4 found that esti&ates of + S/ based on all GH traits ranged fro& >.;; to >.;@ depending on the nu&ber of geographic regions sa&pled. /hese +S/ values are si&ilar in &agnitude to those esti&ated in a nu&ber of studies of classical genetic &ar-ers and %N' &ar-ers.

Si&ilar results have been reported in conte)t to dental traits 3e.g., !anihara 3<>>K44. /he found correspondence bet0een genetic +st and esti&ated congenital phenotypic +S/ is curious given so&e of the points &entioned above. It see&ingly suggests that genetic +st doesnEt largely either overesti&ate or underesti&ate 3bet0een continental race4 variance in 3certain4 genetically conditioned phenotypes. 5et, as 0e noted above, depending on 0hich biological races 0e are discussing, the +st &easured genetic differentiation is &ediu& to large as Judged by social science 3or population genetic4 standards. /o

illustrate, the relationship bet0een percent variance bet0een populations and various statistics is sho0n belo0.

So if one points to the results of #elethford 3<>>?4 to argue against points ';, '<, '=, and B@, one is forced to accept, as a default position, &ediu& to large genetically conditioned differences bet0een such and such biological races. .f course, one could try to argue that differentiation in the genes that underlay interesting physiological and neurological functions is trivial F but the e&pirical evidence spea-s against such an argu&ent. 's an e)a&ple of such evidence, in the conte)t of regional 3European, East 'sian, 2est 'frican4 population differences, 2u and Ihang 3<>;;4 conclude6
In this study, 0e find that genes involved in osteoblast develop&ent, hair follicles develop&ent, pig&entation, sper&atid, nervous syste& and organ develop&ent, and so&e &etabolic path0ays have higher levels of population differentiation. Surprisingly, 0e find that "endelian-disease genes appear to have a significant e)cessive of SNPs 0ith high levels of population differentiation, possibly because the incidence and susceptibility of these diseases sho0 differences a&ong populations.

'nother 0ay to escape the reverse of the Ctoo little variationC argu&ent 0ould be to &aintain that the particular traits under discussion are unli-e others. .ne &ight reiterate 7oring BracesE argu&ent F 0hich, 0e ad&it, 0e could never &a-e sense of -- that there 0as so&e uni:ue evolutionary selection against population differences in the particular traits under :uestion. In the sa&e 0ay that no hu&an populations could e)ist 0ithout heads, it could be argued that no hu&an population could e)ist e.g., 0ith a genetic propensity for ti&e preference less than that of any other populations. /his type of argu&ent, of course, is ridiculous 0hen applied to nor&ally distributed and highly heritable polygenic traits since 0ithin every geographically defined population innu&erous subpopulations &anage to e)ist 0ith differences in these traits. In short, the 8too little variance9 argu&ent cannot be salvaged. /o the e)tent that it is dee&ed valid 3despite the considerations &entioned in '; to '=4, it clearly fails to support the position 0hich it is enlisted in defense of. IV-%. 5hades of de !obineau

The considerations abo.e lend the)sel.es to the conclusion that at least so)e interesting sociobiolog" differences exist between often discussed biological races. +hile there don<t see) to be direct genetic effects of a degree such to reclude the0 if i) erfect0 cross cultural assi)ilation of a li)ited nu)ber of indi.iduals fro) .er" different races0 it has been shown in theor" that s)all between indi.idual beha.ioral differences can a) lif" such to roduce large between o ulation ones :#ic7ens and (l"nn0 BCC=;8 )ore s ecificall"0 o ulation le.el differences in.ol.e not 4ust the direct effects of indi.idual le.el differences0 but the" also in.ol.e the indirect effect of these differences0 thus allowing for the o ulation le.el a) lification of differences :!ordon0 =>>H0 see also Bea.er and +right :BC==; for a s ecific exa) le;. As such0 there is no inconsistenc" between the a arent0 if i) erfect0 general cross cultural assi)ilabilit" of a li)ited nu)ber of indi.iduals and the ro osition of racticall" significant geneticall" redis osed between race cultural differences. So&e racialists have argued that biological race and culture are deeply ent0ined. +or e)a&ple, Sa& +rancis 3:uoted in S0ain, <>><4 argued6
/he civili,ation that 0e as 0hites created in Europe and '&erica could not have developed apart fro& the genetic endo0&ents of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civili,ation can be successfully trans&itted to a different people. If the people or race 0ho created and sustained the civili,ation of the 2est should die, then the civili,ation also 0ill die.

2hile 0e agree that biological differences are not unrelated to cultural ones, the degree of ent0ine&ent is, in our opinion, so&e0hat less than that envisioned by "r. +rancis. #eaders, though, can Judge for the&selves. E)ploration of the association bet0een genetic, neurological, and culture differences is being conducted in the field of cultural neuroscience. See Chiao 3<>>?4. 2hile discussion focuses on CculturalC differences, the biological racial aspects of the differences are i&plicitly recogni,ed, hence Chiao and '&bady 3<>;>4 note that they Cprefer to discuss population variation in the geno&e in ter&s of culture rather than raceC but then go onto discuss populations 0hich correspond to 0hat 0e consider to be biological regional races 3e.g., Europeans and East 'sians4 or to nations 0hich can roughly be clustered into biological races or described in ter&s of degrees of 3e.g., continental4 racial ad&i)ture. .ther research 0hich also deals 0ith cultural differences and population genetics is being conducted in differential psychology. +or an introduction to this line of investigation, readers are referred to 7aland et al. 3<>;>4 and Pen-e 3<>;>4. +or e)a&ples of so&e interesting preli&inary findings, readers are referred to Schilling et al. 3<>;;4, 2ay and 7ieber&an 3<>;>4, Sch&itt 3<>;;4, Garcia, et al, 3<>;>4, and "ra,e-, et al. 3<>;=4 concerning discussions of population -though not necessarily on the continental level --differences in, respectively, cri&inality, collectivis&, &ating patterns, life history, and &oral looseness. .ther researchers have tried to &ap global variance in intelligence onto global !aplogroup variance 3e.g., #odrigue,-'rana 3<>;>4 and #inder&ann, et al. 3<>;<44. So&e additional interesting possibilities have been discussed by 'nthropologist Peter +rost in his <>;; article C!u&an nature or hu&an natures1C. /hese include racial, though, again, not necessarily at the contental level, differences in6 visual 0ord for& processing, reproductive strategy, propensity to0ards violence, and personality.

In general, so&e culturally related differences are undoubtedly genetically conditioned. /o the e)tent that they can be said to be causally genetic 3see SesardicPs 3;??=4 lucid discussion of PdirectP versus PindirectP genetic causation4, the path0ays are li-ely largely indirect. Congenital cultural related differences bet0een individuals bet0een biological populations generally do not see& to be large 3per social scientific standards4. 5et, as noted above, large differences on the individual level are not necessary for large differences on the populational level. Generally, ths area of research is still in its infancy and there is &uch that is opa:ue. In ter&s of our overall understanding of sociobiological differences bet0een races not a 0hole lot see&s to have changed since %ar0in 3;KHA4 0rote6
'lthough the e)isting races of &an differ in &any respects, as in colour, hair, shape of s-ull, proportions of the body, ac., yet if their 0hole organisation be ta-en into consideration they are found to rese&ble each other closely in a &ultitude of points.... /he sa&e re&ar- holds good 0ith e:ual or greater force 0ith respect to the nu&erous points of &ental si&ilarity bet0een the &ost distinct races of &an. /he '&erican aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as &uch fro& each other in &ind as any three races that can be na&edB yet I 0as incessantly struc-, 0hilst living 0ith the +uegians on board the 8Beagle,9 0ith the &any little traits of character, she0ing ho0 si&ilar their &inds 0ere to oursB and so it 0as 0ith a full-blooded negro 0ith 0ho& I happened once to be inti&ate.

VI--. Race and Intelligence: An Interlude VI--.= !lobal #ifferences 2e 0ill not delve deeply into the topic of race and intelligence, as doing so 0ould re:uire an essay t0ice the currentPs length. 2e 0ill si&ply note that this issue is of grave i&portance to &any opponents of biological race -- and then provide a brief outline of the geneticist position. 2ith regards to the issuePs i&portance, Pigliucci 3<>;=4 tells us6
.f course, anyone 0ho has seriously loo-ed into this endless debate -no0s very 0ell that here is 0here the sta-es really lie6 it is not about s&all genetic differences that &ay or &ay not help build a &ore individuali,ed &edicineB it is not about forensic anthropologists and ho0 0ell they do their 0or-B it is about clai&s that one race has superior or inferior intellectual capabilities than other one.

2hile 0e disagree 0ith Pigliucci 3<>;=4 concerning his clai& that this issue represents the true essence of the debate, as it is a very i&portant concern !or him and his colleagues and as it has relevance to &oral argu&ents against biological race 3discussed in -I4, 0e 0ill discuss the &atter, though as econo&ically as possible. +irst, a note about ter&inology6 In psycho&etrics, the do&inant &odel of intelligence has three stratu&s of cognitive abilities 0ith a general factor situated at the ape). In the literature, so&eti&es the assort&ent of cognitive abilities 3narro0, broad, and general4 ta-en together is called intelligence and so&eti&es only the general factor is. In practice, full scale scores fro& cognitive batteries, such as ID tests, inde) general intelligence differencesB as such, in conte)t to inter-individual differences, the ter&s CIDC 3a &easure4, Ccognitive abilityC 3an inclusive description of abilities4, and Cgeneral intelligenceC 3stratu& III in the do&inant &odel of intelligence4 are used synony&ously. !ere, 0e 0ill use the ter&s CintelligenceC and Ccognitive abilityC synony&ously and to refer to the

assort&ent of correlating cognitive abilities inde)ed by achieve&ent, ID, cognitive ability, and other tests. 2hile the differences in intelligence 0hich 0e are discussing al&ost certainly inde) ones in general intelligence, as no studies have established this, 0e 0ill not call the& Cgeneral intelligenceC differences. /hat being said6 /he e)istence of substantial interracial and international differences in cognitive ability have long been suspected 3e.g., (efferson, ;HK<B Galton, ;KA?B see also the discussion in Ba-er, ;?H@4. /he last thirty years have vindicated such speculations. /he volu&es of research on this topic 0ill not be revie0ed here. Instead, readers are referred to #inder&ann 3<>>H4 and 7ynn and anhanen 3<>;<4 for recent esti&ates of intelligence by nation and continental race. /hese esti&ates are based on ID and international achieve&ent tests, e)a&s 0hich have been sho0n to be highly predictive of success both 0ithin and bet0een nations and regions 3see, for e)a&ple6 "alloy 3<>>K44. /he latent ability differences inde)ed by these tests are ubi:uitous. /hey sho0 up, for e)a&ple, in nation of citi,enship differences on Educational /esting ServicesPs G"'/, G#E, and /.E+7 and in national differences on Education +irstEs English Proficiency Inde) 3see6 ( +uerst. 3<>;@, +ebruary ><44. In short, these national and regional differences can apparently be found on any predicatively valid &easure of general intelligence. 'ath #iagra) for National English *sage Rate0 -"nn and Vanhanen<s :BC=B; National INs0 !2AT0 !RE 2ath0 !RE Reading0 T/E(0 and E'I 5cores b" Nation :of Citi9enshi ;

's Baten and (uif 3<>;=4 note, the international cognitive ability differences are not ne0 and they precede the event of &ass schooling. 's such, Baten and Sohn 3<>;=4 found that $orea, China and (apan had high nu&eracy levels in the ;A>>sB (uif and Baten 3<>;=4 found that Spanish and Portuguese had higher nu&eracy levels than '&erindian Incans in the ;G>>s. (uif and Baten 3<>;=4 also found that ;K<> cohort levels of ethnicQnational cognitive ability predicted <;st national levels. +or the nu&erous econo&ic, political, de&ographic, sociological, epide&iological, and geographic correlated, they are referred to 7ynn and anhanen 3<>;<4. Generally spea-ing, global variance in intelligence e)hibits a north south clinal pattern for indigenous populations. /his pattern does not hold 0hen it co&es to recent 3post;G>>4 global &igrants 3e.g., Europeans in 'ustralia, N.E. 'sians in Bra,il, and S.S. 'fricans in North '&erica4. Since there is a high correlation bet0een s-in colorQreflectance and regional &easured ability 3typically around >.?4, the distribution of the t0o can be thought of si&ilarly. So&e published esti&ates 0hich ta-e into account various environ&ental factors are sho0n belo06

!lobal )a of cogniti.e co) etences fro) Rinder)ann :BC=G0 ,anuar";.

/here are three reasons for suspecting a genetic basis for so&e of the global differences. +irstly, genes e)plain a large portion of intelligence differences bet0een individuals 0ithin nations and racial groups. 'cross Eurasia, 'ustralia, and North '&erica, by adulthood, A>-K>[ of the variance in ability is accounted for, directly and indirectly, by genes. /his sets the behavioral genetic default. Secondly, national and continental racial differences are associated 0ith nu&erous historic, biological, and evolutionary variables. So&e of these are sho0n belo06

/he evolutionary and genetic correlates of these differences i&ply that either genetic differences are directly causing the differences, that genetic differences are doing so indirectly by 0ay of environ&ental factors, or that the global genetic- intelligence covariance is a product of so&e third, unidentified, set of factorsB 0hatever the case, there is for races and nations a robust association bet0een cognitive ability and genesB hence, there is good reason for suspecting that differences have a genetic etiology. /he third reason is that the cognitive ability scores of international &igrants tend to correlate 0ith the cognitive ability scores of those fro& the regions of origin. /hat is, to so&e e)tent, &igrants carry the regional ability differences 0ith the&. +or e)a&ple, Chinese in South East 'sia tend to have higher &easured cognitive ability than indigenous South East 'sians 37ynn, <>>K4B Europeans in sub-Saharan 'frica, the '&ericas, and .ceania 3'ustralia and Ne0 Iealand4 tend to have higher intelligence than the peoples indigenous to those areas 3or the peoples 0ith &ore indigenous ad&i)ture4. Based on an analysis of ;<= countries, G@ of 0hich 0ere European colonies, Prayon and Baten 3<>;>4 found a European colonial &igrant hu&an capital effectB European &igrants to 'frica, South 'sia, .ceania, and the '&ericas had, to start, higher levels of developed cognitive ability 3as inde)ed by age heaping4 than the peoples indigenous to those regionsB the authors found that the conte&poraneous benefits of the historic hu&an capital infusion, resulting fro& European &igration to these areas, varied as a function of the ratio of Europeans to non-European nativesB see also6 (uif and Baten 3<>;=4. In short, intra-national cognitive disparities bet0een ethnic and racial groups 3e.g., &ore European versus &ore '&erindian Peruvians4 can to so&e e)tent be traced bac- to region of origin disparities. #egarding conte&poraneous &igrant perfor&ance by nation of origin, Canabana 3<>;;4 found that nation of origin intelligence 0as a better predictor of first and second generation &igrant childrenPs international test perfor&ance than 0as nation of destination intelligenceB +uerst 3<>;@, +ebruary ;;4 found that 7ynn and anhanenPs 3<>;<4 National IDs predicted international PIS' &ath, reading, and science test scores of &igrantPs -ids fro& A< nations of origin across ;H destination nations. /hese &igrant racial and national cognitive ability differences generally also sho0 up in the *.S., the country 0hich currently accepts the largest nu&ber of &igrants. +or e)a&ple, belo0 sho0s the authorsP analysis of the *.S. /I"SS and PI#7S 3<>;;4 test results by nativity and sociologically defined *.S. raceQethnicity. +irst, second, and thirdZ generation individuals 0ith substantial sub-Saharan 'frican ancestry 3CBlac-C4 under-perfor& first, second, and thirdZ generation individuals fro& Central and South '&erica -- 0ho have substantial European, sub-Saharan 'frican, and '&erindian ancestry -- 3C!ispanicC4 0ho under-perfor& first, second, and thirdZ generation individuals 0ho have substantial North 2est Eurasian ancestry 3C2hiteC4.

(or an ex licit discussion of intelligence differences between races in twent"-three )ultiracial societies0 readers are cautiousl" referred to -"nn :BCCE; :cautiousl" because the wor7 is badl" in need of u dating;. At this oint0 it will be noted that the existence of a robust association between )igrant and region of origin erfor)ance is fairl" crucial to a hereditarian :additi.e genetic; )odel. The )atter0 of course0 is co) licated b" )igrant selecti.it"0 ethnic identification attrition0 differential breeding atterns0 non-tri.ial en.iron)ental influence on )easures0 and so on. Met0 were a racial hereditarian osition correct0 one would ex ect to find0 when loo7ing across nu)erous countries0 a robust statistical association between region of origin scores and )igrant b" region of origin le.els of )easured general cogniti.e abilit". That said0 and as discussed in the rior section0 large hereditarian differences are not needed to account for large causall" genetic differences on the le.el of the o ulation. 's for the origin of congenital regional differences, a nu&ber of &odels have been offered. ' fe0 e)a&ples6 "iller 3<>;>4 and Gottfredson 3<>>H4 proposed gene-culture co-evolution &odelsB Cochran and !arpending 3<>>?4 suggested that beneficial alleles could have been differentially ac:uired through adaptive introgressionB to account for the global north-south cognitive ability cline, 7ynn 3<>>A4 and others have proposed a &odel of cold 0eather cli&atic selection 3see also6 Gottfredson 3<>>H44. /he last &odel has interesting theoretical and e&pirical support. #egarding theory, in 3at least so&e4 nonhu&an species, cli&ate is associated 0ith bet0een population variation in cognition, brain si,e, and heritable neural functioning 3see, for e)a&ple, #oth et al., <>;>B #oth et al., <>;<B #oth et al., <>;=4B cold evolved populations are, apparently, sharper. +or hu&ans, &odels 0hich assu&e a si&ple relationship bet0een selection conditioned on cognitive ability and cli&atic harshness over the last A>,>>> years reasonably predict

current global cognitive capital 3see6 !art, <>>HB relatedly6 Grall, <>;<4. #egarding e&pirical findings, cli&ate by 0ay of cranial si,e e)plains a non-trivial portion of the National ID variance 3see6 "eisenberg and 2oodley 3<>;=44. Generally, cognitive and cognitively related so&atic differences are in agree&ent 0ith the cold 0eather &odelB this &odel is also in agree&ent 0ith the literature regarding other species. It is robust. /his all said, are there reasons to be s-eptical about the e)istence of a genetic basis for such differences1 +irstly, the psycho&etric nature of the differences is not 0ell investigatedB si&ply, itPs not clear to 0hat e)tent they are psycho&etrically unbiased in the sense of having the sa&e &eaning as those differences, ones 0hich are -no0n to have a substantial genetic basis, bet0een individuals 0ithin nations and regions. In principle, international differences could be li-e the 0ell -no0n secular ones 3+lynn Effect4, 0hich are due to so&e &i) of psycho&etric bias and 3presu&ably4 environ&ental factorsB though, the secular differences donPt have evolutionary and genetic correlates, nor have there been any reported cases of cross-te&poral &igrants enduringly scoring li-e their te&poral co&patriots, granted no such &igrants e)ist. Secondly, the &igrant and international differences, 0hile generally consistent 0ith a non-trivial hereditarian hypothesis, are not 3literally4 co&pelling. In short, the true &odel is &ore co&plicated than a si&ple hereditarian oneB but, then, no one is arguing for such a &odelB rather, &any are arguing for a si&ple, and in the authorsP opinion untenable, environ&ental one. VI--.B -ocal #ifferences: The Case of African and Euro ean A)ericans In addition to debates about global differences in cognitive ability, there are persistent ones concerning local sociologically defined racial and ethnic groups such as 'frican and European '&ericans 3for the latest round of this particular one, see6 $aplan, <>;@4. /he local and global debates are related because local racial classifications o!ten more or less &ap onto or tend to be understandable in ter&s of global ones. +or e)a&ple, 'ustralian aborigines, a very ad&i)ed group 3"cEvoy et al. <>;<4 0ith high rates of e)oga&y 3!eard et al., <>>?4, largely represent an hybrid European-'ustraloid population, one 0hich differs fro& the 2hite 'ustralian population in degree of !!# ancestry. /he :uestion arises as to 0hether the 0ell established 2hite - 'boriginal 'ustralian cognitive ability differences 3%alton, <>;;B 7eigh and Gong, <>>?4 have a genetic basis o0ing to racial ancestry. In the case of the *.S., 'frican '&ericans represent a European-2est 'frican !ybrid populationB if there 0ere significant hereditarian intelligence differences bet0een Caucasoids and Negroids, or, at least, bet0een Europeans and 2est 'fricans, one 0ould e)pect to find significant such differences bet0een Europeans and 'frican '&ericans 3though one could i&agine scenarios 0here the latter but not the for&er e)isted, o0ing to e.g., selectionB see e.g., !ans Eysenc-Ps opinion, discussed in "odgil and "odgil 3;?KA4, concerning slave selection.4 /he evidence for significant hereditarian differences bet0een these groups is stronger than that regarding global regions. #eaders are referred to (ensen 3;??K4, #ushton and (ensen 3<>>G4, and !art 3<>>H4. ' fe0 points6 3;4 +or the last ;>> years, a cognitive ability score gap of appro)i&ately ; ZQ- >.< standard deviations has been found bet0een adults of these t0o populations. 3+or a longitudinal &eta-analysis, see6 ( +uerst. 3<>;=,

(anuary ;G44. /his difference, ulti&ately, is traceable bac- to 2est 'frica. 2hile for&al &easures of psycho&etric intelligence only go bac- to the early <>th century, &easures of hu&an capital 3in the for& if nu&eracy and literacy4 sho0 si&ilar differences going bac- to at least the &id ;?th century.

3/o note6 on average, the typical 'frican '&erican linage e)perienced three to four generations of slavery, as &ost Blac- slaves 0ere brought to the *.S. bet0een ;HG> and ;K>>B there is no evidence that the Blac- level of hu&an capital 3co&pared to that in 'frica4 0as reduced during this ti&e.4 Conte&poraneously, Cthe gapC can be found in every region of the *.S.B it e)ists across the SES spectru& 3for a recent revie0 of the relation bet0een the &agnitude of the gap and SES in eight national sa&ples, see6 !u 3<>;=, .ctober <>4B the gap sho0s up in %epart&ent of %efense schools around the 0orld. 3<4 /he score differences have fre:uently been found to be &easure&ent invariant 3see discussion in 7ee, <>;>4B that is, the difference bet0een populations has the sa&e &eaning as that 0ithin 3see6 discussion of "I by 2u et al., 3<>;>44. +urther, according to 7ub-e et al. 3<>>=4, "I i&plies that differences bet0een groups are due to sources that are co&&on to 3or not uni:ue to4 the groups. 3=4 Bio&etric deco&position indicates that the difference can be substantially accounted for by genes 3see discussion in (ensen 3;??K44. 3@4 'd&i)ture &apping applied to large sa&ples sho0s that European 'ncestry correlates 0ith general intelligence correlates 3inco&e, education, and occupational status4 in the 'frican '&erican population 3see, for e)a&ple, table S< in Cheng, et al. 3<>;<44. 3Ga4 Self-reported European ancestry and lighter s-in color correlate 0ith &easured cognitive ability and ability correlates 3see, for e)a&ple, ( +uerst. 3<>;=, 'pril >H44B thus, results fro& ne0er studies confir& those fro& older ones 3see6 Shuey 3;?AA44. 3Gb4 /he linear color-ID association is pri&arily a bet0een fa&ily effect, thus &ostly ruling out a Ccoloris&C hypothesis for the association bet0een inde)es of European ad&i)ture and ID in the Blac- population. 3Based on the ;?;> and ;?=> census results, "ill and Stein 3<>;<4 also found si&ilar results 0ith regards to inco&e and educationB they noted6 C2e find that siblings 0ho differ in s-in color F0ho share a fa&ily

bac-ground but could face differential discri&inationFactually have very si&ilar outco&es on average in ter&s of both education and earnings ... /hese results suggest differences in outco&es bet0een 'frican '&ericans 0ith different s-in tones are largely the result of differing fa&ily bac-grounds, rather than resulting fro& discri&ination.C 3A4 /he offspring of one 'frican '&erican and one European '&erican parent generally perfor& inter&ediate to those of, respectively, of t0o 'frican '&erican and t0o European '&erican parents. Between (ull 5ibling0 Between (a)il" :right; and Between (ull 5ibling0 +ithin (a)il" :left; linear :r; and ran7 order :rho; correlation between color and IN :A(NT;0 and color and "ears Education :6!E; in the African A)erican o ulation based on the N-5M>H sur.e"

2ixed race IN differences based on studies ublished between =>JJ and BCCJ

3H4 /he heritability of ID is high 0ithin both the 'frican and European '&erican populations, yet bioecological &odels predict a reduced heritability in environ&entally disadvantage population 3for the predictions, see6 Bronfenbrenner and Ceci, ;??@4. /hese si&ilar heritabilities go bac- to at least the A>s. +or e)a&ple, the follo0ing results based on the Collaborative Perinatal ProJect 3;?G?-;?H@4 0ere reported by $. Beaver 3personal co&&unications, Septe&ber <@, <>;=46

+or other esti&ates, see the revie0 in (ensen 3;??K4B 3K4 /he Blac--2hite gap is general intelligence loadedB this effect sho0s up on standard ID, situational Judg&ent, trainability, etc. tests 3see discussion in6 #oth et al. 3<>;=44B on average, 0hile genetic effects do, &any environ&ental effects do not produce g-loaded differences 3for discussion, see6 te NiJenhuis et al. 3<>>?4B %ragt 3<>;>4B S&it 3<>;;4B !u 3<>;=, 'ugust ;K44. .ne can go on and on. None of these &entioned or other findings rule out every possible environ&ental hypothesisB though, they surely disprove &any co&&only posited onesB differences are not, for e)a&ple, due to psycho&etric bias as induced by e.g., CStereotype /hreatC 30hich is a recycled version of Ir0in $at, ;?A@ C+ailure /hreatC and CSocial /hreatC e)planation4. #acial environ&entalists, though, can al0ays posit the e)istence of &ysterious and unfalsifiable environ&ental c-factors 0hich, across generation and 3*.S.4 geography, induce, roughly co&&ensurate 0ith racial ancestry, general intelligenceloaded and 3fre:uently4 &easure invariant differences, the &agnitudes of 0hich, as deter&ined by bio&etric deco&position, happens to co-vary 0ith subtest heritability. /his debate, then, 0ill probably only be resolved by the counting of differences in ID associated allelesB a tallying 0hich has already begun 3e.g., Piffer 3<>;=44 and 0ill probably be co&pleted 0ithin the ne)t couple of years. /here are &any other points that could be &ade. %oing so, though, is beyond the scope of this essay, 0hich is only indirectly concerned 0ith Csocially significantC differences. 7est it be thought that a racial hereditarian position is a fringe one, though, it 0ill be noted that a <>;= survey found that the &aJority of responding intelligence researchers concurred 0ith it. /hese results, then, &irror those fro& the last &aJor survey on the topic. /hese are sho0n belo06

/he point here isnPt that the e)istence of a substantial genetic basis for ability differences, and 0ith the& outco&e differences, is beyond doubt, but that, at very least, the issue is unsettled. /his point has bearing on several of the anti-biological race argu&ents discussed belo0. /he -no0n race differences &ight 0ell turn out to be li-e the -no0 class differences, substantially genetically conditioned 3#o0e et al., ;??KB /r,as-o0s-i, <>;@4, or they &ight turn out to be only unsubstantially so. If the for&er, senti&entalists need not panic. "ost genotypic variance 0ill necessarily be 0ithin races 3because &ost &easured phenotypic variance is4 so virtually all &e&bers of all races 0ill have the privilege of feeling superior to so&e &e&bers of other. V. CritiIue of Anti-biological Race Argu)ents V-A. Anti-Biological Race Argu)ents !aving clarified the %ar0inain biological races concept, it is 0orth briefly revie0ing the current state of the debate. Generally, discussion of race in the philosophy of biology and in anthropology is do&inated by vocal and passionate anti-biological racialists, 0hose agenda is to deconstruct race for the sa-e of perceived social Justice. /heir &otivations are not, in the least, concealed. 'ppaih 3;?KA4 tells us that the concept of race is evil6
If 0e can hope to understand the concept e&bodied in this syste& of oppositions, 0e are no0here near finding referents for it. /he truth is that there are no races6 there is nothing in the 0orld that can do all 0e as- 8race9 to do for us. /he evil that is done is done by the concept and by easyFyet i&possibleFassu&ptions as to its application. 2hat 0e &iss through our obsession 0ith the structure of relations of concepts is si&ply, reality.

'ccording to Gut&ann 3in 'ppiah and Gut&ann, ;??K4, the idea of race is dangerous because it perpetuates inJustices6

'nother co&&on usage of raceF0hich I shall call 8color9F refers only to superficial features such as s-in color and facial characteristics, and occasionally also to ancestry. 2ere this all that race &eant today, then it 0ould not be a &orally dangerous fiction. Nor 0ould race be a very significant social or scientific category, around 0hich so&e of the &ost ve)ing political proble&s of our ti&e revolve.... ...But, hu&an psychology being 0hat it is, the &oral case against racial inJustice is unli-ely to be as effective if people continue to believe in the fiction of distinguishable hu&an races.

$as,yc-a et al. 3<>>?4 urge us to struggle against the concept of race because the ter& is Cso loaded 0ith &isconceptions, &isunderstanding, fallacy, preJudice, and bigotryC. /hey tell us6
Is it even possible to study races1 Is the 0ord 8race9 so loaded 0ith &isconceptions, &isunderstanding, fallacy, preJudice, and bigotry that the ter& itself should be changed and its study li&ited19 3;??;6;?G4. 2e are 0ell a0are that dispensing 0ith the ter& altogether has proved difficult. .ne of the reasons is an attach&ent to paradig&s 30e &ight call it 8tradition94, but there is also a second factor6 convenience. !ence, the struggle against the concept of 8race9Fin all of its connotationsFis bound still to be long and arduous. Nonetheless, it is one e&inently 0orth0hile to continue to underta-e.

.ne can list innu&erable si&ilar opinions. 's a result of this &oral ,eal, biological concepts of race have not been dispassionately evaluated and reJected on logical and e&pirical groundsB rather, they have been attac-ed for the sa-e of social Justice, international socialis&, inclusiveness, and, at ti&es, so&e esti&ates of CCui bono1C In the present authorsP opinion, such e)trascientific intents are not, 0ith regards to evaluating positions, proble&atic per seB such &otives are only proble&atic insofar as they lead one to accept unsound argu&ents or they dispose one to0ards intellectual dishonesty. 's such, the present authors are uninterested in Ce)posingC &oralis& on the part of such authors. .ur focus is e)clusively on the &erits of the argu&entsB 0e do not pretend to be purely passive vehicles of science ourselves. 's for argu&ents against biological races, &ost are riddled 0ith fallacies. /he authors of &any try their best to obscure and confuseB so&e, though, see& to be presented in good faith. Since &any find these argu&ents co&pelling, 0e 0ill consider the &ost often stated andQor &ost interesting ones. V-B. Biological Argu)ents Biological argu&ents 0or- fro& 0ithin the biological sciences and atte&pt to sho0 that hu&an races donPt e)ist given so&e strictly natural scientific considerations. /hese can be subdivided into hu&an subspecies argu&ents, pan&i)ia argu&ents, and population structure argu&ents. V-B.=. 5ubs ecies Argu)ents Subspecies argu&ents e:uate race 0ith subspecies and then try to sho0 that hu&an populations donPt :ualify as races :ua subspecies. /hey generally utili,e the follo0ing

strategy6 +irst, establish that biological race is synony&ous 0ith subspeciesB second, establish the :ualifying criteria for subspeciesB third, establish that no hu&an populations :ualify as subspecies. Templeton "1,,6; 71$# /e&pleton 3;??KB <>;=4 e&ploys a four step strategy to dis:ualify biological hu&an races6 3a4 +irst, he contends that Cbiological raceC should refer to ,oological subspecies, 3b4 second, he argues that the criteria for being a ,oological subspecies is having a +S/ value greater that >.<GB 3c4 finally, he points out that the +S/ value bet0een hu&an populations is lo0er that >.<G. /here are t0o proble&s 0ith his argu&ent. +irst, his subspecies &a-ing criteria is based on a &isrepresentation of his cited source, S&ith, et al. 3;??H4. /he cited authors do not discuss &agnitudes of genetic differentiation but rather the a&biguous HG[ rule of thu&b, a rule 0hich 0as discussed in section I -G. 's noted in that section, by at least so&e conte&poraneous interpretations of this rule, e.g., S&ith et al.Ps o0n &ultivariate one, !!# races clearly &eet the said criteria. /he second proble& 0ith /e&pletonPs argu&ent is that the concept of biological race, geographically defined or not, is not nor ever 0as reasonably consistently e:uated 0ith 0hat 0e no0 &ean by ,oological subspeciesB rather the concept Cgeographic raceC is and has been since Ernst "ayr established it in the <>th century. !ence, for e)a&ple, "ayr and 'shloc- 3;?A?4 state6 C' race that is not for&ally designated as a subspecies is not recogni,ed in the ta)ono&ic hierarchy. !o0ever, the ter&s subspecies and geographic race are fre:uently used interchangeably by ta)ono&ists 0or-ing 0ith &a&&als, birds, and insects. .ther ta)ono&ists apply the 0ord race to local populations 0ithin subspecies.C 's 0e have noted, itPs i&possible to understand the Cgeographic raceC concept 0ithout a &ore general Cbiological raceC concept for Cgeographic racesC to be a specific version of. Even 0ere 0e to arbitrarily set our criteria for !ormal ta)ono&ic biological race recognition such that no sets of hu&an populations &et it, 0e 0ould still be left 0ith in!ormal ta)ono&ic biological races and biological races as understood in other biological research progra&s. /his last point &ar-s a third proble& 0ith /e&pletonPs argu&ent, a proble& 0hich 0as touched upon in section I -I. Biological race can be a valid biological concept 0ithout being a for&ally recogni,ed ta)ono&ic unitB it can be a valid concept in another research progra& or it can be a valid but not for&ally recogni,ed unit in ta)ono&y. /his distinction bet0een biological race as a recogni,ed ta)on and as a unit of analysis goes bac- at least to I&&anuel $ant. #eaders are referred to $antPs discussion in C.n the *se of /eleological Principles in PhilosophyC. !e noted6 C/he fact that this 0ord does not occur in the description of nature 3but instead of it that of variety4, cannot prevent the observer of nature fro& finding it necessary 0ith respect to natural history.C >ahr "1,,?# 7ahr 3;??A4 identifies biological race 0ith ,oological subspecies and then tries to dis:ualify hu&an subspecies on the basis of the HG[ rule. 7ahr 3;??A4 argues6 C"odern hu&an regional populations &ay be very discrete in so&e characteristics 0hich could co&ply 0ith the HG[ rule, but not in their co&bined biological para&eters.C 7ahrPs

3;??A4 argu&ent suffers fro& the previously noted proble& of e:uating biological race 0ith ,oological subspecies. 'dditionally, 7ahrPs understanding of the ,oological subspecies :ualifying criteria is proble&atic. +irst, there are no !ormal criteria for !ormal ta)ono&ic racial recognition. /o verify this point, readers can chec- the international rules of ,oological no&enclature. No for&al criteria are set because it is 0ell recogni,ed that Cno non arbitrary criterion is available to define the category subspecies 3"ayr and 'shloc-, ;?A?4C. "oreover, 0ith regards to the HG[ rule of thu&b, there see&s to be no interpretative standard 0hich stipulates that differences are in Cco&bined biological para&etersC. +urther, this Cco&bined para&eterC criti:ue &a-es no sense 0ith respect to a &ultivariate approach, e.g., as suggested by S&ith et al. 3;??H4. In a &ultivariate analysis, differences 0ould be in co&bined biological para&etersB ta-en singly, they Just 0ould not be large enough to &eet univariate standards understood in ter&s of "ayrPs Coefficient of %ifference. 'igliucci and @aplan " 77$# Pigliucci and $aplan 3<>>=4 use a strategy si&ilar to that of /e&pleton 3;??KB <>;=4, e)cept that they donPt invo-e a non-e)istent ,oological criterion. /hey si&ply argue that there should be such criteria in the case of hu&ans, due to possible social ra&ifications of the usage of the race concept. %iscussing their e)tra-,oological criteria, they note6
Before addressing those :uestions, it is 0orth ta-ing a short detour to consider 0hy so &any authors 0riting about the 3non4e)istence of hu&an races have &ade use of such a strong definition of race 3i.e., assu&ed that biologically significant races &ust be populations separated fro& other populations by serious barriers to gene flo04. Part of the reason undoubtedly has to do 0ith the history of the ter& UUraceEE as it is applied to hu&ans. Insofar as one is as-ing a :uestion not about the e)istence of biologically significant races 3of the sort that e)ist in certain species of %rosophila,for e)a&ple4 but rather about the e)istence of a biological Justification for the UUordinaryEE language racial categories, the concept of race appealed to 0ill have to be :uite strong.

Inconsistently, they ac-no0ledge that ecotypes can be called subspecies. /hey donPt i&pose e)tra-ecological criteria to rule about hu&an ecotypic races, though, because they hope to e&ploy an ecotypic concept to release the pressure built up fro& all out biological race denial. 's such, they allo0 for hu&an ecotypes but then argue that such ecotypes do not correspond to co&&on sense races. 's Pigliucci 3<>;=4 s&ugly notes6
's for the biological interpretation of the concept of race, I have reiterated Pigliucci and $aplanEs 3<>>=4 suggestion that it is not &eaningless, but it does have a sufficiently different &eaning fro& that of fol- races to create serious proble&s for &ost of the published scientific and philosophical literature on biological differences a&ong UUraces.E

.f course, they are only able to &a-e this case by narro0ly understanding PecotypeP to &ean sets of individual 0hich share co&&on traits in the &anner of for&s and types and other artificial biological populations as opposed to ecologically adapted natural populations 3in 0hich individuals differ one average4. In their hurry to dis&iss PfolracesP, they &isread the very definition they cite 3i.e., $ing and Stansfield 3;??>44 and ignore co&&on ecotypic definitions such as that proposed by Coyne 3<>;<46

#aces of ani&als 3also called 8subspecies9 or 8ecotypes94 are &orphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry 3i.e. are geographically separated4.

In su&&ary, these four argu&ents represent the pro&inent subspecies criti:ues of biological race. /hey are unsound because they narro0ly e:uate biological race 0ith subspecies and because they rely on :ualification rules foreign to ,oology. V-B.B. 'an)ixia argu)ents 'ccording to another biological argu&ent, 0hich appears fro& ti&e to ti&e, 3a4 hu&an history 0as &ar-ed by e)tensive gene flo0, 3b4 biological races re:uire e)tensively restricted gene flo0, 3c4 no hu&an populations have sho0ed such restricted gene flo0, ergo 3d4 there are no hu&an biological races. /he basic proble& 0ith this argu&ent is that outside of ta)ono&y a gene flo0 re:uire&ent &a-es no sense and that in taxonomy 3a4 there is no Crestricted gene flo0C re:uire&ent for biological races 3:ua natural biological populations4 belo0 the ,oological sub specific level and 3b4 the gene flo0 criteria pertaining to ,oological subspecies is ill-defined. #egarding the latter point, "ayr and 'shloch, for e)a&ple, si&ply note that 0hen it co&es to subspecies recognition one should consider CsufficientC genetic isolation as one of &any e:ually 0eighted factors. /he issue of CsufficientC genetic isolation 0ith regards to hu&an continental races 0as discussed in section I -G. /o repeat our position in this regards, 0e can not see ho0 one could dis:ualify hu&an continental races fro& being hu&an ,oological subspecies given liberal readings of the various rules of thu&b. /he issue then beco&es one of 0hether hu&an continental races &a-e ideal ,oological subspecies. 2hile hu&an races are not as genetically differentiated as .strich or Elephant subspecies, it is not difficult to find a plethora of species 0ith unchallenged ,oological subspecies 0hich are both phenetically and genetically less differentiated than the&. .f course, it could al0ays be &aintained that all of those less differentiated subspecies are PbadP ones on the account of not even being as differentiated as hu&an races which we &now can not be zoological subspecies. But such an argu&ent is viciously circular. /here are &ore sophistical versions of this pan&i)ia argu&ent. Pigliucci 3<>;=4, for e)a&ple, argues6
Insofar as one considers a eals to biological races to be atte) ts to ic7 out inci ient s ecies0 it see)s erfectl" clear that there are not currentl" an" hu)an OOraces.DD /here are no e)tant populations of our species that are plausible candidates for being incipient species. NE&phasis addedO

!ere, Pigliucci 3<>;=4 plays 0ord ga&es 0ith the ter& Cincipient speciesC, a ter& 0hich is used to refer to subspecific natural populations 0hich sho0 genetic divergence of so&e degree. 's there has been inconsistency in the usage of the ter&, it is easy to fashion a e:uivocal argu&ent. 2ith regards to usage, for e)a&ple, /heodosius %ob,hans-y 3;?H>4 treated racial populations, in general, as Cincipient speciesC 3a.-.a. Pspecies statu nascendiP4. !e noted6 C/o state that races are incipient species is not tanta&ount to saying that every race is a future species. #ace differentiation is reversibleB race divergence &ay superseded by convergence. /hat is, in fact, 0hat is happening to the hu&an species. /o

beco&e species, races &ust evolve reproductive isolation.C .n the other hand, Shea, et al. 3;??=4, use the ter& to refer to a se&i-species level of differentiation. /hey tell us6
"ost significant for an understanding of "ayrPs vie0s of speciation and its possible relationship to intraspecific variation 3at least as stated in this ;?K< paper4, 0e noted that "ayr 3;?K<, p. G?@4 argued that Csubspecies are not types, NbutO populations or groups of populations,C and he 0ent on to caution that Cthe designation of Pincipient speciesP NisO true only of isolates but not of contiguously distributed continental subspecies.C ... ....2e close this section by reiterating that by no &eans do 0e intent to suggest that subspecies are necessarily or even fre:uently incipient species, and therefore pri&ary units of evolutionary change.

/his inconsistent usage allo0s Pigliucci 3<>;=4 to &a-e his argu&ent, 0hich can be rerendered as6 !u&an populations are not Cincipient speciesC 3:ua se&i-species4B races are Cincipient speciesC 3:ua subspecfic natural populations 0ith reduced gene flo04B ergo, hu&an populations arenPt races. 2hat can one say1 V-B.F. 'o ulation 5tructure Argu)ents Several types of population structure argu&ents have been &ade, for e)a&ple, that discussed and criti:ues in section I -I by 7ong et al. 3<>>?4. ' &ore general line of argu&ent runs6 !u&an genetic diversity is better characteri,ed in non-racial ter&s, therefore hu&an races donPt e)ist. In line 0ith this reasoning, as noted in section I -B, so&e anthropologists donPt consider there to be biological races because either they feel that hu&an biological variation is best understood in ter&s of continuous gradation or because they feel that pan&i)ia reigns. /his Cbetter characteri,edC argu&ent pits a race perspective against a non-race perspective and ignores the possibility of seeing hu&an variation in both racial and non-racial ter&s. /he argu&ent in favor of hu&an biological race is that conceiving hu&an genetic variation in racial ter&s 3i.e., in ter&s of subspecific natural populations4 is a, not the, biological valid 0ay of conceiving hu&an genetic variationB &utalis &undis, the argu&ent against and the, not a% Beyond representing an e)cluded &iddle fallacy, the latter position is e&pirically unsustainable for the follo0ing reasons6 pan&i)ia does not reign 3hence, a&ongst hu&ans !t X !s4, even the for&al ta)ono&ic recognition of race does not re:uire the absence of a population continuu&, and hu&an variation, at least on the continental level, e)hibits discontinuities. V-C.=. Bio-statistical Argu)ents: Inde endent Variation #elated to the biological argu&ents are statistical argu&ents concerning the ability to accurately classify individuals into races. It has been argued that, for various reasons, individuals can not be accurately assigned to proposed biological races and therefore that biological races either can not e)ist or are not real or are useless or are &eaningless. /he &ost popular version of this argu&ent has been called the Cindependent traitC argu&ent, 0hich has been characteri,ed by #obin 'ndreasen 3<>>@4 thusly6

%efenders of Uthe independent variation argu&entE &aintain that &any of the traits traditionally used to define races S s-in color, hair type, eye shape, blood type, propensity to0ards disease S vary independently 37ivingstone ;?A@B Gould ;?HHB %ia&ond ;??@4. +or e)a&ple, a classification based on s-in color &ay cross-classify one based on blood type. Both classifications &ay disagree 0ith one that is based on propensity to0ards a certain disease. /his proble& is said to be co&pounded as &ore and &ore traits are added to the classification sche&e. If one trait is used 3e.g., s-in color4, it &ay be possible to provide an una&biguous classification sche&e.

'gain, this argu&ent 0as used to support the clai& that individuals could not be grouped into coherent populations based on genetic and phenotypic characters since characters supposedly varied independently. +or e)a&ple, 'ppaih 3;??K4 argues6
Even li&iting oneself to the range of &orphological criteria available to these co&parative anato&ists it is hard to classify people obJectively into a s&all set of populations.

*nfortunately for this argu&ent, it so happens that the characters of the said races, and of natural biological populations in general, donPt vary independently. #ather, they are correlated, thus allo0ing increasing, not decreasing, accuracy 0ith the nu&ber of traits ta-en into consideration. /his, of course, has been -no0 for so&e ti&e but it only has recently and grudgingly been ac-no0ledged. !och&ann 3<>;=4, for e)a&ple, concedes6
Sesardic argues that forensic anthropology under&ines the independent variation argu&ent by sho0ing, contra 'ndreason, that as the nu&ber of traits increases, racial classification beco&es easier and easier.

Pigliucci 3<>;=4 dis&isses the rebuttal to the independent variation argu&ents, saying6
It is a truis& of &ultivariate statistical analysis that &e&bership in individual clusters of pretty &uch any heterogeneous collection of obJects can be ascertained 0ith a fairly high degree of accuracy if one has a sufficient nu&ber of discri&inatory variables to play 0ith.

Pigliucci 3<>;=4 is of course right that individuals can often be grouped into populations so long as traits are correlated, but that this is the case does not &a-e the Cindependent variation argu&entC less 0rong. "ore to the point, that the traits for these biological populations are correlated evidences that 0e are dealing 0ith natural, as opposed to artificial, populations. /he present author 0ill not revie0 the volu&es of genetic and anthropological data concerning various hu&an biological race and classifiably. +or discussions concerning continental level hu&an races and anthropo&etric traits, readers are referred to, a&ong others, Ba-er 3;?H@4, Brues 3;??>4, #elethford 3;??@4, and Gill. 3;??K4. V-C.B. Bio-statistical Argu)ents: !enetic #ifferentiation .ne variant of the biostatistical argu&ent runs6 since the level of genetic differentiation bet0een populations is lo0, individuals cannot accurately be assigned to natural populations. #elethford 3;??@4, for e)a&ple, &ade this argu&ent 0hen stating6
/here are several i&portant i&plications fro& these results for both conte&porary hu&an variation and patterns of hu&an evolution. 's noted by 7e0ontin 3;?H<4 and subse:uent studies, the lo0 degree of a&ong-group genetic variation relative to total species variation argues strongly against traditional typological racial classifications. 2hile a&ong-group variation is statistically

significant in all cases, the over- all degree of a&ong-group variation is too lo0 to produce any substantial accuracy in racial classifications.

/his argu&ent has been sho0n to be unsound. +or the e)planation 0hy, readers are referred to the discussions of #isch, et al. 3<>><4, Ed0ards 3<>>=4, 2itherspoon et al. 3<>>H4, Gao and "artine 3<>>?4, #osenberg, N. '. 3<>;;4, and /al 3<>;<4. V-#. 5ociological Argu)ents Sociological argu&ents start 0ith the proposition that, 0hen it co&es to hu&ans, the concept of biological race should only be used in the case of populations for 0hich there are Csocially significant or Clarge enoughC or Cunifor& enoughC or Cinteresting enoughC or Cdeep enoughC differences. Si&ilarly, it is argued that for races to be considered biological units, they need to be Creal -indsC. It is then argued that no such populations e)ist or that any such populations that do e)ist do not correspond 0ith co&&on sense race classifications. +or e)a&ple, 'ppaih 3;??K4 reasons6
+ro& (efferson to 'rnold, the idea of race has been used, in its application to hu&ans, in such a 0ay as to re:uire that there be significant correlations bet0een the biological and the &oral, literary, or psychological characters of hu&an beingsB and that these be e)plained by the intrinsic nature... ..../hat has turned out not to be trueB the recent fuss generated by /he Bell Curve about the correlation of race and ID in the *nited States not0ithstanding.

'nd 'ndresson 3<>>@4 notes6

"any conte&porary race scholars &aintain that races are biologically unreal. 2hat they usually &ean by this is that fol- racial categories 3such as blac-s, 0hites, and 'sians4 are biologically uninteresting. /hey are e)planatorily and predictively 0ea- in the natural sciences S especially 0hen it co&es to e)plaining or predicting biologically based socially significant traits. Several argu&ents have been used in support of this vie0. /0o of the &ost persuasive are 0hat I call the Uindependent variation argu&entE and the Ugenetic argu&entE.

'nd !ac-ing 3<>>G4 argues6

'bout the sa&e ti&e that /he Bell Curve 0as published, ogre naturalists, such as Philippe #uston in #ace, Evolution, and Behavior, &ade &ore s0eeping clai&s to biologically grounded racial differences. /hey clai&ed that the races are distinguished by &any properties rightly pri,ed or feared for different strengths and 0ea-nesses. If that 0ere true, then races 0ould e)actly fit "illEs delinnition of a real $indL #ushton clai&ed that the races are real $inds.

/here really is not &uch to say about these argu&ents. In our vie0, 0hether biological races e)ist and 0hether there are sociologically Ci&portantC differences bet0een the& are distinct issues. 2e &ight be overloo-ing an interesting argu&ent, though. Perhaps, 'ppaih 3;??K4 et alia 0ant to treat Cbiological raceC contra Cbiological natural populationsC si&ilar to ho0 ta)ono&ists treat CsubspeciesC contra Cnot for&ally recogni,ed biological racesC. Since ta)ono&ists i&pose their arbitrary standards for the for&al ta)ono&ic recognition of

race, perhaps, 'ppaih 3;??K4 et alia are Justified in i&posing their o0n arbitrary sociological standards for any recognition of biological races :ua races in the conte)t of hu&ans. Can 'ppaih 3;??K4 et alia successfully &a-e such a sociological argu&ent1 2e thin- not. 7et us put aside the fact that neither 'ppaih 3;??K4 nor anyone else has sho0n that there are no CinterestingC sociobiological differences given the types and &agnitudes of differences that 'ppaih 3;??K4 et alia the&selves consider to be CinterestingC as inferred fro& their various references to the 0or-s of #ushton, "urray, and !errnstein. /he &agnitudes of regionalQcontinental racial hereditarian differences in general &ental ability 3g4, cri&inality, and the super-@ factor of life history varyingly proposed or suggested by #ushton 3all three4 or "urray and !errnstein 3g4 are generally in line 0ith the &agnitudes of the average genetic variability bet0een !!# racesB for this reason and others 3&entioned in section I -(. 8Significant9 #acial %ifferences 4, no s0eeping Ctoo little bet0een genetic varianceC argu&ent is tenable. 's such, to de&onstrate that there are no interesting sociobiological differences, one &ust e&pirically do this for every relevant trait, one at a ti&e. 's far as the authors of this article have been able to deter&ine, as of <>;@, this has not been done. But let us Just focus on the logic of the argu&ent, not the absence of supporting evidence. 's for this, ,oologists li&it the nu&ber of for&ally recogni,ed races, by i&posing arbitrary standards, for the practical reason that the nu&ber of biological races for any given species is indefinite and very largeB giving each biological race a trino&en and listing each in a catalogue 0ould lead to taxonomic chaos. 2hen not e)plicit, an i&plicit distinction is &ade bet0een for&ally and not for&ally recogni,ed biological racesB &oreover, 0hen not e)plicit, an i&plicit distinction is &ade bet0een biological race as a ta)ono&ic class and biological race as a unit of analysis. .pposed is the for&al recognition of a very large and indefinite nu&ber of ta)on for a very practical taxonomic reasonB not opposed is the recognition of race as a unit of analysis in research areas. If 'ppaih 3;??K4 et alia intend to argue against the for&al ta)ono&ic recognition of racial classifications, they need to argue their case in ,oological ter&s using ,oological standards. If they intent to argue against the recognition of race, in general, as a pan species biological unit of analysis, then need to couch their case in ter&s of evolution, ,oology, ecology, population genetics, and so on. 2e outlined our understandings in sections I a II. 2e donPt see ho0 they could &a-e a case, aside fro& a possible se&antic one -- one 0hich, in our opinion, is unsustainable. If, instead, they 0ant to argue that said hu&an biological races are not, in fact, biological races, they have to &a-e this argu&ent using genetic data, given so&e generic biological, not sociological, definition of race. It is, of course, not sufficient to sho0 that sociological races do not perfectly correspond 0ith biological ones to sho0, in turn, that the biological ones, the&selves, are not, in fact, biological. 2e discussed the issue of sociological versus biological race in section II-". +inally, and this is the -ey point, if they intend to argue against the in!ormal biological recognition of specific racial classifications or against the applying of race as a biological unit of analysis to hu&an genetic variety, they need to argue this case in the ter&s of the biological, not sociological, sciences or else their argu&ent succu&bs

to the sa&e proble& as does $itcher 3<>>H4Ps 3as discussed in section I-%4. 2hen biological race is defined or dela&inated on the basis of considerations that fall outside the purvie0 of the biological sciences, it fades as biological race. 2hen 'ppaih 3;??K4 et alia set race :ualification criteria that are foreign to the biological sciences, e.g., 0hen they re:uire differences in socially significant traits, they &ove a0ay fro& biological race. Such sociological argu&ents do not address biological race as such. 'nd they definitely do not address our biological race concept. /he &ore these argu&ents appeal to e)tra biological considerations, the &ore they cease to be argu&ents against hu&an biological races, as understood as hu&an populations that constitute biological races as understood as natural biological populations as understood in the biological sciences. V-E.=. 5u ernaturalistic Argu)ents Supernaturalistic argu&ents &aintain that hu&an biological races are not real given so&e e)tra-natural criteria. /hese argu&ents are related to sociological argu&ents in that they burden biological races 0ith e)tra-biological criteriaB they differ in that the criteria i&posed are not sociological in the sense of Csociologically interesting differencesC but are :uasi-&etaphysical. ' co&&on such argu&ent is the Ctrue level argu&entC in 0hich it is &aintained that for hu&an biological races to be biological races they &ust represent episte&ic or ontological privileged categories. +or e)a&ple, Puglicci 3<>;=4 attac-s Sesardic 3<>;>4 thusly6
+irst off, #osenberg et al. actually found a variable nu&ber of &aJor clusters 3A, G, @ and even =4, depending at 0hat level one stops the analysis. 2hy pic- a particular one as the &aJor finding of the paper, other than because five clusters happen to fit the authorEs predilection for the true nu&ber of hu&an races1 't the very least this is blatant cherry pic-ing of the relevant evidence...again, one can identify legiti&ate genetic clusters of hu&an populations at a variety of hierarchical levels, but Sesardic offers no principled reason for identifying one such clustering as &ore funda&entally indicative of races.

'nd !och&an 3<>;=4 co&plains6

In the #osenberg et al. study there 0ere five grains of analysis, each producing different clusters. !o0 is the race naturalist to decide 0hich is the UrightE grain of analysis, or ho0 &any races there are1 're the $alash of north0est Pa-istan, 0ho 0ere separated on the finest grain of analysis, supposed to be a race, for instance1 'nd ho0 are 0e to interpret #osenberg et al.Es 0ithincontinent analysis, 0hich sho0ed al&ost as &uch structure as the bet0een-continent analysis1

Both agree that co))on sense races :e.g.0 the 66R; reasonabl" corres ond with natural biological o ulations0 but both argue that so)e le.el of anal"sis needs to be shown to be 3)ore funda)ental3 than other le.els of anal"sis for these races to be biologicall" real and to be0 in so)e sense0 races ro er. These argu)ents are not biological scientific ones since no intra-s ecific di.ision can be 3)ore funda)ental3 than another :exce t in the wea7 sense discussed in section IV-E;. As +ilson and Brown :=>JF; noted with regards to subs ecies:
Particular confusion surrounds the dra0ing of the lo0er li&its of the subspecies category 0ithin that spectru& of classes recogni,ed by "ayr as e)tending fro& Cthe local population into the subspecies.C /he difficulties in this deli&itation ste& fro& four outstanding features of geographical variation... 3@4 the necessary arbitrariness of any degree of population divergence chosen as the lo0est for&al racial level.

.r as %ob,hans-y 3;?@A4 noted about races in general6

.irst, since all magnitudes o! di!!erence are !ound among populations, any speci!ied minimum can be only arbitrary% 5econd, it is most important to realize that the di!!erences between the Ama:orB human races are !undamentally o! the same nature as the relatively minute di!!erences between the inhabitants o! ad:acent towns or villages% /here is no CtrueC subspecific level. 'nd arguably, as noted by %ar0in, there is also no true distinction bet0een specific variation and sub specific variation as the t0o for& a genetic continuu&B even 0hen 0e define a species as a genetically reproductively isolated population, the intrinsic isolation is &ore accidental than substantial.

'nother variant of the super-naturalistic argu&ent co&es fro& Pierce 3<>;=46

!ardi&on defends the e)istence of races given a thin conception. Surely there are groups of hu&an beings distinguishable by observable physical traits 0ith ancestry traceable to speciTc geographical regions, and such groups &atch up fairly close 0ith the actual groups often described 0ith racially associated ter&s...... /his is not to say that such groups 0ould be discoverable by natural science and therefore count as natural -inds, even on a relatively thin notion of 0hat counts as a natural -ind. "uch has been 0ritten against that sort of prospect.... ...'ll the data established is that races are deter&ined using criteria that are biological, not that the categoriesE e)istence or significance &ust be e)plained purely by biology for there to be races. /he data do not sho0 that races 0ould have to be natural -inds, even nonessentialist natural -inds 3i.e., highly disJunctive properties that are natural only in the sense that they are useful in the natural sciences4.

Pierce 3<>;=4 &ust be a0are of the cluster &apping data 0hich sho0s that continental level biological races can be obJectively delineated. /hese populations are discoverable given a certain resolution. !is argu&ent then rests on the clai& that the disJunctions bet0een hu&an populations are not Chigh enoughC. 'nd that biological race re:uires this. But of course, as %ob,hans-y and 2ilson noted, the distinction bet0een highly discrete and not highly discrete racial differentiation is funda&entally arbitrary. In general, there are no truly true levels of sub-specific biological analysis 0hen it co&es to natural populations. /herefore, de&anding that a certain hu&an racial classification be sho0n to be truly true is biologically unnaturalistic.

V-E.B. The Nu)bers !a)e /he nu&bers ga&e, discussed above, has been adopted as a &aJor recent line of argu&ent against hu&an biological races. +ro& a biological perspective, the argu&ent is uninterestingB it &erely represents a du&bed do0n version of E... 2ilsonPs criti:ue of subspecies. ItPs stupefied because 2ilson, at least, reasonably critici,ed the !ormal recognition of races, not the race concept, per se. /his argu&ent deserves further analysis, though, since others have decided to adopt it. +or e)a&ple, !och&ann 3<>;=4 develops it, stating6
!o0 is the race naturalist to decide 0hich is the UrightE grain of analysis, or ho0 &any races there are1... Putting aside the e)aggeration of 7eroiEs clai& S &ost of us 0ould be spread across the &ap S the arbitrariness of a rough grain of analysis is surely a proble& for racial naturalis&.... Sesardic is atte&pting to revive race on the sa&e definition6 8the basic &eaning of 8race9 see&s to i&ply that, due to a co&&on ancestry, &e&bers of a given race ' 0ill display increased genetic si&ilarity, 0hich 0ill &a-e the& in so&e 0ay genetically different fro& individuals belonging to another race, B9 3Sesardic <>;>, ;@@4 . /his definition is too 0ea- to revive 0hat Sesardic calls 8co&&on-sense9 racial classification because any groups 3including neighbouring to0ns, socioecono&ic groups, etc.4 that have reduced gene-flo0 could be racialised. It is going to be hard to convince scientists, philosophers, laypeople S anyone really Sthat this definition of UraceE should be adopted. If racial naturalis& is the position that it is 8possible to infer so&ething about an individual phenotype fro& -no0ledge of his or her ancestry9 then 0e should all be race naturalists. But since this vie0 does not contrast 0ith social constructionis&, 0hich ta-es hu&an variation as a given 3but sees tradition racial categories as poorly descriptive of that variation4 racial naturalis& should be associated 0ith a stronger position. /he proble& 0ith the stronger position is that it is false.

/o sho0 that Cstrong race naturalis&C is false, !och&ann 3<>;=4 &ust ascribe to the position anti-naturalist :ualities. 'ccordingly, so&e level of analysis &ust be Pthe right grainP or privileged. !is reason for re:uiring this is that, other0ise, Cracial naturalis&C 0ould be virtually trivially true. But does a Cco&&on senseC race naturalist need to Justify a level of analysis1 No, because he &a-es no clai& that a certain level is the true level of analysis 3see6 Sesadic. <>;=4 -- to do so 0ould be very unnaturalistic. .ne &ight as- ho0 one then gets co&&on sense races e.g., $VG continental races1 'part fro& 0hat 0as discussed in section I -E, this 0as e)plained by 7eori as :uoted by !och&an 3<>;=46
N/Ohere is nothing very funda&ental about the concept of the &aJor continental racesB theyEre Just the easiest 0ay to divide things upN.O

%ob,hans-y 3;?G;4 said &uch the sa&e6 C.bviously it 0ould not be convenient to give na&es to racial inhabitants of the different counties of England or of the different

depart&ents of +rance. But everyone 0ill agree that the Negroes, the Europeans, and the '&erican Indians are clearlyC. +ro& a practical perspective, the Cco&&on senseC race naturalist &erely needs to establish the biological validity of the traditional race concept 3i.e., establish that this race delineation is one of a nu&ber of possible valid racial delineations4. !u&an psychology 0ill ta-e care of the rest. /his is 0hy 0e recogni,e @-H continents and not tens of thousands. 2hy H continents and not G1 !o0 can one Justify Europe being one and South 'sia not1 2hy 'ustralia and not Greenland1 (ust one planet, pleaseW 2e as-6 0ould anyone ta-e the above as a serious criti:ue of co&&on sense continental classifications1 2hy then of co&&on sense continental racial classifications1 V-(. 5e)antic Argu)ents 's noted in section II-E, se&antic argu&ents are fre:uently leveled against biological race concepts. %iscussing biological race, "ali- 3<>;<4 0rites, for e)a&ple6
But this too is an inade:uate definition of a UraceE. UGeographical origins do not in the&selves constitute racesE, the philosopher Nao&i Iac- points out. UIf all the people identified as 0hite had ancestors alive in Europe at the sa&e ti&e that the people 0ho are identified as blac- had ancestors alive in 'frica, to say that these are racial ancestral differences adds no ne0 infor&ation to the data on ti&e and place....#ace realists &ight argue that a Continental group is a race S that is ho0 a race is defined. But this is to say so&ething trivial about 0hich there could be no debate. +or the definition of a race to be non-trivial t0o :uestions need to be ans0ered. 2hat is it about Continental groups that distinguishes the& as races1 'nd 0hy should Continental groups, as opposed to other population groups, be defined as races1

"ali- feels that race &ust &ean so&ething in addition to geographic ancestry and that there is no Justification for calling Ccontinental groupsC, as opposed to any other groups, races. Given our conception of biological race, a reply to "ali- is ready on hand6 geographic ancestry is not, in fact, synony&ous 0ith biological raceB only 0hen individual of the sa&e geographic ancestry descend &ostly fro& the sa&e natural biological population do they belong to the sa&e biological raceB hence, the geographically defined sociological race of 'sians in the *S does not correspond to a biological race of 'sians. 2e &ight follo0 "ali-Ps line of reasoning, though, and as-6 C2hy refer to Psubspecific natural biological populationsP as races1 Part of the e)planation 0as given in section II-E. 2e &ight further as-, though6 C2hy not Just give up the ter&, CraceC altogether1C /he reasons are as follo0s. +or one, 0hen this is done the opponents of biological race arenPt satisfied. #ecall 'ppaihEs 3;??K4 discussion of 0hy hu&an races supposedly do not e)ist6
.n the ideational vie0, the ans0er is easy. +ro& (efferson to 'rnold, the idea of race has been used, in its application to hu&ans, in such a 0ay as to re:uire that there be signiTcant correlations bet0een the biological and the &oral, literary, or psychological characters of hu&an beingsB and that these be e)plained by the intrinsic nature 3the 8talents9 and 8faculties9 in (effersonB the 8genius,9 in 'rnold4 of the &e&bers of the race. /hat has turned out not to be trueB the recent fuss generated by /he Bell Curve about the correlation of race and ID in the *nited States not0ithstanding.

The /ell 0urve is cited, yet the authors of this boo- noted that the ter& CraceC 0as overly loaded and adopted the ter& CethnicityC to characteri,e groups in the *S. %espite this, " a ! 0ere still interpreted as spea-ing about CraceC. 'dopting a euphe&is& then 0ill not resolve the issue. 'nd it is no secret that these euphe&is&s are euphe&is&s. %iscussing race, 2eise and +ulleron 3<>>G4 note, for e)a&ple6 C2hether the ter& be Urace,E Uethnicity,E Ugeographic ancestry,E or so&e other favorite euphe&is& the subJect s0irls about today as it has for at least three centuries.C Since discussants recogni,e 0hen 0e are trading ter&s , there is little use in doing so 3beyond duping those that donPt 0ell follo0 the debate4, 'nother reason is that nu&erous philosophers of biology 3along 0ith anthropologists and so&e evolutionary biologists4, as discussed above, accept the usage of the ter& CraceC to describe biological populationsB they si&ply reJect the idea that there are hu&an populations that :ualify as biological races, not the ter& CraceC. /o address the argu&ents presented against the concept referred to by the ter& CraceC, one &ust inevitably refer to the concept as CraceC. /hus, one 0ay or another, opponents of biological race, the&selves, force the retention of the ter&. ' final reason is that subspecific biological natural populations have a strong historic clai& to the ter& CraceC as &ade clear in previous sections. .n these four accounts 3conte&porary usage of the ter& in biology, interpretations &ade by opponents of biological race, usages of the ter& in anti biological race argu&ents, and historic usage4 se&antic argu&ents fail &iserably. V-!. True Race Argu)ents :or 6istorical 2is)atch Argu)ents; 'nother line of argu&ent, discussed in section III, runs6 3a4 once upon a ti&e CraceC referred to x type of 3hu&an4 populations, 3b4 0e no0 -no0 that x type of 3hu&an4 populations do not e)its, 3c4 0e &ust be rigidly faithful to historic ter&inological usage and understand race no0 e)actly as it once upon a ti&e 0as, 3d4 therefore no 3hu&an4 races e)ist. /he first proble& 0ith this argu&ent is that scientific concepts often involve evolving and shifting &eanings. +or e)a&ple, the ato& of today, not being indivisible, is in an i&portant respect unli-e 7eucippusPs and %e&ocritusPs ato&B yet there is a fa&ily rese&blance bet0een the concepts -- both referring to s&all basic units of &atter -- such that it is sensible to refer to both as Cato&sC, and is false to clai& that Cato&s donPt e)istC. 's another e)a&ple, 0hat 0e no0 call ele&etns 3&etals, &etalloids, and non-&etals4 do not &uch rese&ble 0hat 0ere once called ele&ents 3earth, 0ater, air, fire4B the ter& Cele&entC is yet currently e&ployed to describe 0hat it does because, as in the past, the referenced are basic units of substance that share si&ilar properties. /he second proble& 0ith this argu&ent is that the historical &eanings are typically fabricated. In section III, 0e discussed the case of the &issing racial essences. !ere 0e 0ill briefly note t0o other clai&ed CtrueC historic &eanings of race.

1% Caces were histroically thought o! as subspecies "as we now thin& o! subspecies# "ilford 2olpoff 3<>>?4 tells us6
In the earlier literature race was used s"non")ousl" with subs ecies0 and this is still largel" the case in the biological literature. ' ta)ono&ic division Nof variationO e:uates race 0ith the concept of a subspecies, a division of a species into distinct and distinguishable types...../he dis&issal of hu&an races as an organi,ing structure for hu&an biology 0as for &any reasons, including political reasons, but there is a Tr& biological basis for it in the distribution of genetic variation 3/e&pleton, ;??K4, that to so&e e)tent is refected in the distribution of anato&ical variation. NE&phasis addedO

"ilford 2olpoff and freinds need to e)plain 0hy if races 0ere historically understood to be the type of subspecific natural populations that 0e 0ould no0 grant to be ,oological subspecies -- i.e., ones 0hich represent the &aJor divisions of a species and 0hich differ ta)ono&ically to a degree currently thought to be 0orthy of a trino&en -- race 0ere not only associate 0ith such natural populations. 2hy do 0e have to dig through BuffonPs catalogue of races to find his &aJor divisions1 2hy does $ant tell us that 0e can consider regional stoc-s to be a race if Cthe charactersitic feature does not see& too insignificant and so difficult to describeC. 2hy did "orton, Cra0furd, and Bur-e recogni,e as races t0enty-t0o, si)ty, si)ty-three regional populations. 2hy, as noted by Caspari 3<>>?4, 0as race, in the early ;?>>s, used Cto refer to geographic divisions of the hu&an species, but also to s&aller categories that could correspond to nationality and even s&aller social groupsC. 2hy did this usage continue such to allo0 2ilson and Bro0n 3;?G=4 to spea- of the arbitrayness of rules for !ormal racial recognition1 2hy did Coon and Garn 3;?GG4 have to 0rite about the nu&bers issue and e)plain the internal consistency of nested racial classifications1 In short, "ilford 2olpoff presents us 0ith another fabricated history of the race concept6 once upon a ti&e race 0as used to &ean 0hat 0e no0 -- and have since the &id ;?>>s &ean -- by ,oological subspecies. !is narrative allo0s for his version of the no true race argu&ent -- one 0hich falls apart 0hen actual historical usage is pointed out and 0hen 0ords and concepts are distingiushed. "ore could be said about the latter point, but briefly6 fre:uently the terms CraceC and CsubspeciesC 0ere and are used as synon&s or for shorthand for so&ething a-in to C,oological subspeciesC. 'nd yet fre:uently they 0ere and are not. /raditionally, such 0ord usage conflicts, in general, has led to the distinction -- dating bac- to at least G>> B.C. -- bet0een 0ords and concepts In the conte)t of race, 0hile the 0ords CraceC and CsubspeciesC have at ti&es been used to refer to the concept C,oological subspeciesC, for e)a&ple, in conte)t to discussions of particular ,oological subspecies, the concepts CraceC, Cgeographic raceC, and CsubspeciesC are and have generally been understood to not be identical 3ergo6 Cecotypic subspeciesC \Q ,oological subspecies4. % Caces were histroically thought o! as sharply discontinuous populations 'ccording to Iac- 3<>><4, since historic conceptions held that Crace is sharply discontinuousC, et cetera, races do not e)ist in the hu&an species. .ne can find innu&erable reiterations of this version of the true race fallacy. 5et if this 0ere ho0 races 0ere historically conceptuali,ed, 0hy, for e)a&ple, did %ar0in 3;KH;4 note6

But the &ost 0eighty of all the argu&ents against treating the races of &an as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in &any cases, as far as 0e can Judge, of their having intercrossed..... /his diversity of Judg&ent does not prove that the races ought not to be ran-ed as species, but it she0s that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters bet0een the&.

"ore generally, one 0onders 0hen biological races 0ere generally considered to be sharply discontinuous. %id "ayr, %ob,hans-y, and Boyd conceptuali,e the& as such1 Garn and Coon1 Blu&enbach, $ant, and Buffon1 No. !ooton is said to have been a typologist. "aybe his types 0ere sharply discontinuous. In "ethod of #acial 'nalyss 3;?<A4, he tells us6
' pri&ary race is one 0hich ha been &odified only by operation of evolutionary factors ...' secondary or co&posite race is one in 0hich a charactersitc and stabali,ed co&bination of &ophological and &etrical deatures has been effected by a long continious inter&i)ure of t0o or &ore pri&ary races 0ithin an area of relative isolation...it is apparent that the present population of the 0orld consists for the &ost part of secondary races...for &an has been a &igratory ani&al fro& proto-hu&an ti&es do0n to the present and the contact of races has al0ays resulted in race &i)ture.... #aces are great groups and any analysis of racial ele&ents &ust be pri&arily an analysis of groups, not of sperate indviduals. .ne &ust concived of race not as the co&bination of features 0hich gives to each person his individual appearance, but rather as a vague physical bac-ground, usually &ore oe less obscured oor overlaid by individual variations in single subJects, and reali,ed best in a so&posite pcture.

!o0 one can construct such a for&ulation as being one of either sharply discontinuous or essentialistic populations is beyond us. But &aybe 0e can loo- else0here1 2e &ight instead go bac- to 'ristotle, but, as discussed in section III, doing so 0ill not help. 2e i&agine that if 0e loo-ed hard enough, 0e &ight find so&eone 0ho for&ulated race :ua race as Nao&i Iac- tells us the concept 0as. But this is the point6 this 0asnPt ho0 biological race 0as typically historically for&ulated. V-6. 2oral Argu)ents .ften, &oral argu&ents are &ade against the idea of hu&an biological race, or against research of race differences. /hey not infre:uently &a-e thinly veiled de&ands for intellectualQscientific censorship. +or e)a&ple, Pigliucci 3<>;=4 &a-es the case for a sort of soft censorship6
Point 3a4 is actually not in play at all, since as I &entioned I do not thin- anyone F and certainly not the editors of Nature Fis suggesting that acade&ics should be prohibited fro& doing research on race and ID. /hat said, of course, the entire acade&ic research syste& is based on &ultiple levels of peer revie0 3both of articles before publication, and of grant proposals before funding4, one &ain obJect of 0hich is precisely to deter&ine 0hether a given research progra& is 0orth the effort and resources 3be they printed pages in a Journal or dollars fro& a granting agency4. So the :uestion of 0hether research on race and ID should be funded andQor published is legiti&ate, and the burden is on interested researchers to &a-e a case for it, Just as it is in all other fields of scholarship.

/he editors of Nature to 0ho& Pigliucci 3<>;=4 refers see& to have follo0ed his advice, dee&ing the ne)us bet0een race and behavior genetics to be a scientifically invalid or at least unacceptable area of e)ploration6

Scientists have a responsibility to do 0hat they can to prevent abuses of their 0or-, including the 0ay it is co&&unicated. !ere are so&e pointers. .. Second6 be accurate. #esearchers should design studies on the basis of sound scientific reasoning. +or instance, in light of increasing evidence that race is biologically &eaningless, research into genetic traits that underlie differences in intelligence bet0een races, or that predispose so&e races to act &ore aggressively than others, 0ill produce little.

$itcher 3<>>H4 &a-es an argu&ent :uite si&ilar to that of Pigliucci 3<>;=46

Si&ilarly, if a concept, valuable to so&e investigators pursuing a particular research :uestion, &ight cause, in the social 0orld into 0hich that concept is li-ely to &a-e its 0ay, considerable burdens for &any people, then one ought at least to raise the :uestion of 0hether such research is 0arranted. I e&phasi,e that this is not a &atter of censorship F the idea of a 8thought police9 that supervises research and issues interdictions against so&e progra&s is obviously counterproductive 3as 0ell as being distasteful4B the ethical :uestion 8Should this research be done19 needs to be differentiated fro& the sociopolitical :uestion 8Should there be a public ban on e)ploring so&e types of investigations1

7i-e Pigliucci 3<>;=4, $itcher 3<>>H4 opposes 8hard9 or for&al censorship, but argues that the softer type &ight be 0arranted. 2hy1 +or $itcher, the proble& is that concepts of biological race cause social har& and social inJustices, as inde)ed by outco&e disparities. /o :uote a lucid passage6
/here are genuine :uestions in this area, ranging fro& large issues about the survival of cultural traditions and the responsibility of biological descendants to preserve the lore of their ancestors to debates about the desirability of transracial adoption. ... 'll this, ho0ever, &ay see& far too slight to serve as a counter to the da&age that is li-ely to be done by retaining a notion of race. +or, after all, there are obvious and fa&iliar costs to the continued use of racial distinctions. /he &ost obvious of these is the practice of stereotyping, 0hether it is &anifest in the police practice of rounding up the usual suspects or in a teacherEs for&ing a pre&ature Judg&ent about a young schoolchild.... Even here the practice is pernicious, for the correlation is readily &ista-en for a causal diagnosis. %espite all our -no0ledge of the triviality of the genotypic differences bet0een racial groups, the singling out of so&e racial groups as &ore li-ely to engage in cri&inal behavior 3say4 encourages the &yth that there are deep features of &e&bership in such groups that e)plain the increased probability. So the practice of stereotyping fosters bac-sliding into the ugly racial theses that have disTgured past centuries, and they recur in &odern dress as searches for behavioral genes associated 0ith cri&inality, genes alleged to be differentially distributed a&ong the races.

Briefly put6 8racial concepts9 are bad because they result in inJustices, as evidenced by ethnic outco&e differences in certain countriesB the concepts act by encouraging the idea that outco&e differences have a genetic etiology F 0hich cannot be, due to the triviality of the genetic differences bet0een races. /his entire &oral argu&ent is under&ined si&ply by the fact that the causes of the said conte&poraneous outco&e differences are undeter&ined. If a genetic e)planation for racial differences is largely correct, then biological conceptions of races cannot be CguiltyC of nefariously inducing the&. "oreover, as a result of the ongoing 8anti-racist9 hysteria in the 2est, &e&bers of so&e ethnoracial groups are the beneficiaries of discri&ination to co&pensate for $itcherEs perceived inJusticesB other groups are defa&ed and deconstructed on account of these differences. If $itcher is incorrect about his causal &odel, then racial environ&entalis& &ight be the true &oral &onster of the day -- a-in to a &ild &odern-day 7ysen-ois&. In the *.S. paranoid sociologists see ubi:uitous racial discri&ination by 2hites against Blac-s6
%ra0ing on a syste&s perspective, I sho0 that race discri&ination is a syste& 0hose e&ergent properties reinforce the effects of their co&ponents. /he e&ergent property of a syste& of race-

lin-ed disparities is ^ber discri&ination F a &eta-level pheno&enon that shapes our culture, cognitions, and institutions, thereby distorting 0hether and ho0 0e perceive and &a-e sense of racial disparities. ie0ing 0ithin-do&ain disparities as part of a discri&ination syste& re:uires better-specified analytic &odels. 2hile the e)istence of an e&ergent syste& of ^ber discri&ination increases the difficulty of eli&inating racial disparities, a syste&s perspective points to strategies to attac- that syste&. 3#es-in, <>;<4

In +ustralia, Duropeans "Ehites# are admonished and shamed on account o! the poor outcomes o! +borigines;
Ehen +boriginal and Torres 5trait Islander children F ta&e their places as doctors and scientists, when it is no longer remar&ed that members o! parliament and cabinet ministers are indigenous, and above all when there is no social or economic indicator that shows a lower standard !or +borigines and Torres 5trait Islanders, only then 0ill 'ustralia be able to hold up its head because a 8fair go9 0ill have beco&e reality. 3Econo&ist !elen !ughes, Duotes in #oth0ell, <>;=4

/he *.S. Supre&e Court Justices Justify open racial discri&ination on the grounds that historical 3that is, no longer occurring4 inJustices are the cause of outco&es differences6
I have several ti&es e)plained 0hy govern&ent actors, including state universities, need not be blind to the lingering effects of 8an overtly discri&inatory past,9 the legacy of 8centuries of la0sanctioned ine:uality.9 Id, at <?K 3dissenting opinion4. See also 'darand Constructors, Inc.v. Pega, G;G *. S. <>>, <H<S<H@ 3;??G4 3dissenting opinion4. '&ong constitutionally per&issible options, I re&ain convinced, 8those that candidly disclose their consideration of race NareO preferable to those that conceal it.9 Grat,, G=? *. S., at =>G, n. ;; 3dissenting opinion4. http6QQ000.supre&ecourt.govQopinionsQ;<pdfQ;;-=@GhlGg&.pdf

Generally, 0hen it co&es to racial and ethnic differences in socially valuable traits, 0e have four possibilities6 3;4 true environ&entalis&6 differences are thought to be environ&entally conditioned and areB 3<4B 4 false environ&entalis&6 differences are thought to be environ&entally conditioned but are genetically soB 3=4 true geneticis&6 differences are thought to be genetically conditioned and areB 3@4 false geneticis&6 differences are thought to be environ&entally conditioned but are genetically so. /hose 0ho &a-e &oral argu&ents believe that the concept of biological race encourages option 3@4, 0hich creates unJust differences in outco&e. So&e concede that it is not -no0n for certain 0hether environ&entalis& or geneticis& is actually the case, but argue that this does not &atter since false environ&entalis& 3=4 can have no negative e)ternality. But the actual effect of 3=4 is a perverted for& of Justice 3in the classic sense e.g., 'ristotle in 2icomachean Dthics4 in 0hich unJust treat&ent is dished out for the sa-e of atte&pting to e:uali,e une:ual groups. *ndoubtedly, a nu&ber of biological race opponents believe that biological conceptions of race &a-e &ore plausible genetic vie0s of differences bet0een sociologically defined racial and ethnic groups. /his &ight be the case -- but, if so, it is due to an i&poverished understanding of the issue. 's noted, a genetic hypothesis does not presuppose biological races 3e.g., upper class vs. lo0er class4. 's such, this &oral argu&ent against the concept o! biological race rests on so&e variant of the social construct fallacy. 2hatever the case, to even begin to &a-e their &oral argu&ent against biological race concepts, opponents of these concepts need to establish that 3a4 the relevant differences are not, in fact, genetically conditioned, 3b4 these differences are the product of inJustice, and 3c4 biological concepts of race so&eho0 foster this inJustice. 7ittle to none of this has been done. 2e thin- that the &oral i&port of the nature versus nurture is underappreciated -- or &aybe not -- &aybe it is 0ell understood. +irstly, if racial geneticistsQhereditarians are substantially correct, conte&poraneous differences bet0een racial groups largely can be

accounted for by the direct and indirect effects of genetic differences, thus fatally da&aging &oral argu&ents 0hich rest on conte&poraneous Cine:uityC. /he causal i&port runs deeper than this, as a racial geneticQhereditarian position need not be true to render proble&atic $itcher 3<>>H4 et al.Ps &oral argu&ent. It &erely needs to be plausible and perhaps testable, both of 0hich it is. 's 0e donPt 0ish to belabor the point, 0e 0ill si&ply 0rite out the argu&ent using the ID debate as an e)a&ple, though one could apply the sa&e logic to other differences6
a. As of BC=G0 the nature-nurture race-IN debate is unresol.ed. b. /he debate can readily be resolved through so&e co&bination of ad&i)ture &apping, structural e:uation &odeling, and geno&e 0ide co&ple) trait analysis. c. /he episte&ic status of biological race is largely logically orthogonal to the nature-nurture raceID debate, a debate 0hich gets along Just as fine 0hen treating races as non-biological sociological groups. d. 'rgu&ents against biological race often represent fallacious atte&pts to a priori invalidate the hereditarian position 3i.e., the social construct fallacy4. e. /he causal :uestion 3nature versus nurture4 is often tied to a &oral issue 3not culpable versus culpable4, 0ith genetic and discri&inatory accounts fre:uently being pitted against one another 3See6 7evin, ;??H4. f. ' correct deter&ination of the cause 3nature-nurture4 of group differences is itself &orally i&portant, as it allo0s for a &ore accurate deter&ination of culpability. .bstruction of this deter&ination itself represents a gross affront to Justice. +ro& these si) points, the conclusion follo0s6 /he argu&ent against biological race insofar as it is a &eans of hindering an e&pirical deter&ination of the cause of the said differences is an affront to Justice.

'nti-biological race argu&ents, insofar as they are used to obstruct the deter&ination of the cause of group differences and 0ith it, in &any peoplePs opinion, a correct assess&ent of culpability, represents an obstruction of Justice regardless of 0hether or not a hereditarian position is true. It represents a &oral fraud. Secondly, if racial geneticistsQhereditarians are substantially correct &any historic narratives beco&e deeply co&plicated, thus da&aging those argu&ents 0hich rest on historic grievances. /i&e constraints preclude us fro& elaborating on this latter point. Instead of atte&pting a condensed discussion of this co&ple) &atter, for so&e alternative perspectives that e&erge fro& genetic realis& about race differences, 0e refer readers to philosopher Gedaliah BraunPs delightful 0or-, C#acis&, Guilt, Self-!atred, and Self%eceitC -- specifically, for e)a&ple, the follo0ing sections6 C/he Pros and Cons of 'partheidC, C/he incoherence of CBlac- #ule No "atter 2hatC, C'frican States Not +it to Govern /he&selvesC, C/he Parado) of IntegrationC, CSchool Segregation in '&ericaC, C%id 'partheid cause Blac- behavior or did Blac- behavior cause 'partheidC, etc. 2ith regards to historic grievance argu&ents, one derivation is 0orth &entioning6 race concepts are ta-en to be 8bad9 because once upon a ti&e they 0ere used to pro&ote inJustices. (ohn !odge see&s to &a-e this case in his letter to the 2ew Yor& Times 3<>;=46
/he &yth of 8race9 has supported the horrors of slavery, apartheid, segregation, eugenics and the !olocaust. It continues to support racis&. 2e cannot si&ply ignore the har& this &yth has caused and pretend that the &yth never e)isted.

/he scientific, de&ocratic and ethical goal should be to eli&inate the false idea of 8race9 co&pletely. But ho0 do 0e both destroy the &yth and re&edy the har& it has caused1 3http6QQ000.nyti&es.co&Q<>;=Q>HQ;HQopinionQinvitation-to-a-dialogue-the-&yth-of-race.ht&l4.

/hese types of argu&ents shoot too 0ide. /he sa&e once upon a ti&e sophistry 0or-s against political organi,ations, religions, classes, nations, languages, even fa&ilies F al&ost any i&aginable type of organi,ation. I&agine "r. !odge arguing6
Scientists have found no evidence to support the idea of Cthe transcendentC./herefore, religion is a &yth. #eligion supported 0ars, persecution, slavery 3e.g., Isla&ic slave trade4, segregation, genocides, et cetera. Not only are certain religions fla0ed, as suggested by the practice of so&e of 0orshiping an elephant deity, but the very idea of Cthe transcendentC is./he scientific, de&ocratic and ethical goal should be to eli&inate the false idea of 8the transcendent9 co&pletely. /o start, 0e &ust condition others to understand that 0hen they discourse about religion they are tal-ing about an arbitrary and har&ful social custo& constructed based on a continuu& of psychosocial e)periences.

+e0 people -- class "ar)ists and atheist !u&anists aside -- &a-e this argu&ent because 3a4 no one really cares about the historic abuses of a concept divorced fro& present reality, and 3b4 no one &a-es &uch of conte&poraneous religious outco&e differences F despite their obvious e)istence. /his reflection &a-es it clear that the 8&oral proble&9 of biological race is grounded in concerns about the cause of conte&poraneous outco&e differences F yet, as noted above, the causes of such differences are undeter&ined. No0, regarding conte&porary differences, again i&agine applying the sa&e type of argu&ents to other concepts. +or e)a&ple6
/he &yth of 8fa&ily9 has supported the horrors of child abuse, incest, do&estic violence, nepotis& and the "afia. It continues to support favoritis& for oneEs o0n so-called 8fa&ily &e&bers9 over so-called 8strangers.9 5et scientists have found no evidence of a 8S&ith gene9 that distinguishes 8S&ith fa&ily &e&bers9 fro& 8(ones fa&ily &e&bers.9 2e cannot si&ply ignore the har& this &yth has caused and pretend that the &yth never e)istedW /he scientific, de&ocratic and ethical goal should be to eli&inate the false idea of 8fa&ily9 co&pletelyW 'ny ti&e so&eone &entions 8fa&ily,9 they perpetuate this evil lie. But ho0 do 0e both destroy the &yth and re&edy the har& it has caused1

Better0 one could a l" this )oral logic to the conce t of 3self3 :e.g.0 the Buddhist critiIue of the conce t of self as an autono)ous entit";. /ne could -- and "et the e.ilness of or resultant fro) the conce t of the self is orthogonal to the conce t<s e iste)ic .alue. /ne could neglect the distinction between e iste)ic and olitical .alue a la %itcher0 but to do so is to engage in social deconstruction0 a deconstructing of the realit" of so)ething for so)e socio olitical end. +e understand that this is what )an" o onents of biological race are ga)ing at8 and we understand wh"8 we 4ust ho e to illu)inate the situation b" ex osing the .acuit" of their logical and scientific osition. /here is one final for& of obJection6 so&e egalitarians oppose all for&s of e)clusive groups, as e)clusivity inevitably leads to outco&e differences bet0een groups via the differential accu&ulation and transfer of goods. /hey feel that biological racial identity is particularly heinous because race represents a relatively i&per&eable boundary preventing the free flo0 of &e&bers across associations. ' significant nu&ber of argu&ents against race are grounded in this anti-particularist thin-ing, a &oral fra&e 0hich largely sees group e)clusivity as the real ene&y of e:uality. /hese people rail against CsegregationC, e)clusivity, closed borders -- they 0ould, 0ere they &olecules vehe&ently oppose se&iper&eable &e&branes. 's 0e reJect egalitarian &orality of the

co&prehensive -ind, an ideology according to 0hich individuals should thin- of and treat everyone no differently SS , and as 0e affir& the principles of free association and self deter&ination, that individually and collectively people have the right to 0or- to0ard their self defined good, 0hich &ight include the good of oneEs race, be it biologically real or social SS such considerations, e)cept as they reflect a conflict of liberties of association and deter&ination, in 0hich case they represent a generic proble& not one specific to race, do not e)ist on our &oral hori,on. 's such, they 0ill not be ta-en up -after all6
/he &yth of 8e:uality9 has supported the horrors of the (acobinis&, 7eninis&, Stalinis&, "aois&, and the !olodo&or -- ulti&ately the greatest do&icides of the <>th century. It continues to support totalitarian hu&anis& around the 0orld.. 2e cannot si&ply ignore the har& this &yth has caused and pretend that the &yth never e)isted. /he scientific, de&ocratic and ethical goal should be to eli&inate the false ideas of 8e:uality9 co&pletely.

/hree &ore considerations6 =. 5u erior and Inferior Here the concept of the "equal value of men before God" is extraordinarily harmful; one forbade actions and attitudes that were in themselves among the prerogatives of the strongly constituted as if they were in themselves unworthy of men! 99.%2% 61= 't this point, 0e are supposed to repudiate the idea of racial superiority. 2e 0onPt. 2hile 0e generally esche0 the ter&s CsuperiorC and CinferiorC in conte)t to discussions of people, these ter&s are continually i&posed onto the debate, for the sa-e of &a-ing a sort of pre-e&ptive ad ho&ine&, by opponents of biological race 3e.g., Pigliucci, <>;=4. 's 0e are not inclined to run a0ay fro& 0ords6 If 0e ta-e CsuperiorC to &ean Cgreater thanC 0ith respect to socially valued traits, 0hether or not a given biological race is superior to another in the given trait is a purely e&pirical &atter. .ne si&ply has to deter&ine if there is a difference in the said trait and if so, if it is not already -no0n, if the trait is generally socially valued. /o say that population ' is superior to population B -- treating populations as 0holes, or in philosophical parlance, individuals -- in trait c is to say that population ', relative to population B, has a higher value in trait c in addition to saying that trait c is socially valued. 3If 0e 0ished to treat our populations as sets or aggregates of hu&an individuals, 0e 0ould si&ply &odify our state&ent by appropriately adding Con averageC.4 E)a&ples of socially valued traits, at least in the 2est, are 8sta&ina,9 8health,9 CintelligenceC, CforthrightnessC, CprudenceC, CcivilityC, etc -- all of 0hich can be operationali,ed in so&e &anner. It goes 0ithout saying that one can not e&pirically deter&ine 0hether a trait is PtrulyP valuable. But one needs not. Clai&s of PinferiorityP and PsuperiorityP in specific traits &a-e no deep a)iological presu&ptions. No0, it goes 0ithout saying that there are, on average, practically significant phenotypic differences bet0een various biological races -- though these differences are typically less than those bet0een individuals 0ithin a given race 3less than i.e., ;.;H S%4. 'nd the position that there are no congenital differences bet0een any biological races is

untenable. %ebate can only be on 0hether such and such trait is valued in this or that society or 0hether there are genetically conditioned differences bet0een this and that biological race. No0, 0e 0ould go further to say that the position that so&e regional geographic races are not genetically inferior in, e.g., intelligence is li-e0ise untenable. /his position puts us at apparent odds 0ith Nobel pri,e 0inning (a&es 2atson, 0ho, in the &idst of controversy, said6
/o those 0ho have dra0n the inference fro& &y 0ords that 'frica, as a continent, is so&eho0 genetically inferior, I can only apologi,e unreservedly. That is not what I )eant. 2ore i) ortantl" fro) )" oint of .iew0 there is no scientific basis for such a belief... The o.erwhel)ing desire of societ" toda" is to assu)e that eIual owers of reason are a uni.ersal heritage of hu)anit".... To Iuestion this is not to gi.e in to racis). This is not a discussion about su eriorit" or inferiorit"0 it is about see7ing to understand differences0 about wh" so)e of us are great )usicians and others great engineers. :,a)es +atson: To Iuestion genetic intelligence is not racis);

-et us briefl" consider these re)ar7s. "hile "atson didn#t back away from his hypothesis of congenital intelligence differences0 he )ade it clear that he felt that clai)s about 3su erior3 and 3inferior3 were non-scientific. +e inter ret +atson as )a7ing one of two argu)ents:
:=; 5cience can not deter)ine if a gi.en trait is intrinsicall" .aluable. A clai) about grou su eriorit" is necessaril" a clai) about intrinsic .alue :with regards to a gi.en trait;. Therefore0 a clai) about grou su eriorit" in a gi.en trait is necessaril" non scientific. :B; 5cience can not deter)ine if a grou of indi.iduals is intrinsicall" )ore .aluable than another. A clai) about grou su eriorit" is necessaril" a clai) about intrinsic .alue :with regards to a grou of indi.iduals;. Therefore0 a clai) about grou su eriorit" as such is necessaril" non scientific.

+hile we agree that the deter)ination of intrinsic .alue is a non scientific enter rise0 we see no reason wh" a clai) of su eriorit"0 as such0 entails one concerning the intrinsic. Co))on usage agrees with us8 hence0 clai)s concerning extrinsic differences :in sociall" .alued traits; are freIuentl" ta7en at face .alue as clai)s of su eriorit" :e.g.0 Nisbett et al.0 BC=B on +oodle" and 2eisenberg0 BC=B;. As such0 we are forced to res ectfull" disagree with #r. +atson -- and we reiterate: the relati.e inferiorit" and su eriorit" of indi.iduals and racial grou s in a given trait is an e) irical )atter.

And what of intrinsic inferiorit"Psu eriorit" -- or differences in intrinsic worth1 Not being creationists0 we can not acce t Tho)as ,efferson<s clai) that all )en were created eIual :in the sense of lex naturalis;. And ha.ing re4ected creationis)0 we see no reason wh" the osition of intrinsic hu)an eIualit" is )ore reasonable0 a priori0 than that of intrinsic hu)an ineIualit". Barring other considerations0 agnosticis) is called for. Can we e.er" )o.e be"ond this1 +e see a few ossible routes0 of which we will consider one: one can atte) t to infer intrinsic differences fro) extrinsic ones b" construing henetic andPor genetic differences in highl" .alued traits QQ granting the a ro riate axiolog"0 )eta h"sics0 and ontological assu) tions QQ as e.idence of differences in intrinsic worth. #oing so see)s rather co) licated to us. 5o we entertain a ossible shortcut: following Niet9sche0 one can si) l" selecti.el" fail to recogni9e the ancient intrinsicPextrinsic distinction8 b" .irtue of indistinction0 one can .iew eo le who are su erior in highl" .alued trait R as si) l" being su erior. Interested readers are referred to 'er7ins< :=>>H; excellent discussion of Niet9sche<s call to unlearn the bad )ental habit of distinguishing between inner and outer nature. +e thin7 that this is an interesting idea0 but here is not the lace to further conte) late the )atter. There are then wa"s in which one could defend a osition of intrinsic racial inferiorit". /f course0 it should hardl" need to be said that since )ost henot" ic and genetic .ariance is within biological races0 intrinsic differences in worth within races :would; dwarf those between8 and0 )oreo.er0 differences between0 sa"0 hu)ans and wor)s :would; dwarf those between hu)ans. At an" rate0 such a osition is hiloso hicall" defensible. In su))ar"0 the issue of whether this or that indi.idual or grou of indi.iduals is extrinsicall" su eriorit" to so)e other is an e) irical one. Intrinsic su eriorit" is a )ore co) lex issue. Nonetheless0 such ositions0 though the" tend to fall outside the hori9on of )ost conte) orar" )oral debate0 restricted as it is0 are hiloso hicall" defensible. B. A Not-so-New 2oralit" for Race

6a.ing 4ust defended hiloso hical racial hierarchicalis)0 we )ust )a7e a few )ore general re)ar7s about race and )oralit". According to the /ffice of the *nited Nations 6igh Co))issioner for 6u)an Rights0 the abo.e discussion constitutes so)e sort of thought cri)e. The /ffice and the signators of 3International Con.ention on the Eli)ination of All (or)s of Racial #iscri)ination3 declare that the" are:
con.inced that an" doctrine of su eriorit" based on racial differentiation is scientificall" false0 )orall" conde)nable0 sociall" un4ust and dangerous0 and that there is no 4ustification for racial discri)ination0 in theor" or in ractice0 an"where. 5tates 'arties conde)n all ro aganda and all organi9ations which are based on ideas or theories of su eriorit" of one race or grou of ersons of one colour or ethnic origin?.@

*nfortunatel"0 the authors< clai)s are rather o aIue0 if not weasell" -- so it<s difficult to address the) well. If the clai) is that it<s 3scientificall" false3 that so)e biological races are congenitall" inferior to others in such and such traits0 we would li7e to see the e) irical e.idence. As we 7now that The /ffice has not e) iricall" ruled out all scenarios0 let alone in.estigated an"0 we ta7e this clai) as seriousl" as we would a 'a al bull. But0 we )ight as70 is the idea -- inde endent of its factualit" -- of either extrinsic or intrinsic ethnic and racial su eriorit" 3)orall" conde)nable0 sociall" un4ust and dangerous31 There can be no doubt that it is dangerous to so)e ideological s"ste)s and that it is un4ust and i))oral b" so)e )oralities. But are these the )oral s"ste)s which we desire1 +ell0 not us. +e ro ose the following considerations to hel na.igate racial thin7ing0 ones which0 as best we can tell0 are consistent with traditional +estern )ores:

a. It )a7es sense to thin7 about grou differences0 racial or otherwise0 as one would about within-grou differences. If one esti)ates that so)e indi.iduals are extrinsicall"Pintrinsicall" su erior on such and such account it would be insensible to conclude that grou s of the)0 ta7en as indi.iduals or aggregates0 are not li7ewise insofar as the" are. b. I)agining that one<s grou 0 howe.er defined0 is better than others0 is reasonable0 in degree0 4ust as feeling that one is8 if not e) iricall" 4ustified0 doing so0 in )easure0 re resents a health" ani)al arrogance0 a life sustaining :or grou cohering; )"th. It<s as reasonable for indi.iduals to ersonall" identif" with and to find )eaning through one<s biological race as it is to do so with and through an"thing else e.g.0 one<s s ecies0 the cos)os0 one<s 3self30 one<s culturePreligion. +hile0 for so)e0 such references are natural0 in the sense of being artiall" geneticall" conditioned :-ewis and Bates0 BC=C8 +eber et al.0 BC==8 /re" and 'ar70 BC=B;0 the )oral acce tabilit" of such referencing is not contingent on this naturalness. It is on the .er" basic rinci les of :.ulgar; hiloso hical liberalis). The corollar": it<s as reasonable for societies0 as collecti.es0 to discourage0 b" whate.er )eans0 indi.idual biological racial identities as it is to discourage an" other.

The reasonableness of discri)inating for the grou s one identifies with -- including0 if so0 one<s biological race -- is a function of the reasonableness of discri)inating for oneself .ersus others0 since self and grou identities flow into one another8 if one0 eschewing a radical utilitarian .iew0 considers self-other discri)ination to be acce table0 one should consider0 b" extension0 so)e degree of own grou -other grou discri)ination to be li7ewise. Accordingl"0 4ust as wanton self discri)ination is )orall" roble)atic0 so is wanton grou discri)ination8 and 4ust as other for)s of self discri)ination are not0 so to with other for)s of grou discri)ination.

Racial reference and discri)ination0 in degree0 )a7e articular sense since these re resent rational extensions of genetic interest :5alter0 BCCF8 5alter0 BC=F;0 which0 in turn0 re resents a biological i) erati.e of a sort. *nderstood biologicall"0 in degree ethnic genetic interest0 li7e genetic interest0 is ada ti.e in the sense of gene ro)oting. 2ore hiloso hicall": continuance is a basic hu)an good8 in this sea /bli.ion0 this shiwrec7 life offers little to gras onto8 don<t begrudge others< atte) ts8 to geneticall" re roduce oneself can be seen as one of )an" wa"s of rocuring continuance -- #ioti)a: 3conce tion and generation are an i))ortal rinci le in the )ortal creature : ;38 one can achie.e this .erticall" :through the sur.i.al and welfare of descendants; or hori9ontall" :through the sur.i.al and welfare of co-descendants;8 racial grou s are co-descendant grou s8 ergo0 reference and discri)ination can be )eans of securing this basic good.

The Symposium

:To be clear0 lest we are )isunderstood regarding this delicate )atter: we e) haticall" re4ect the idea that 3intrinsic racis)3 as defined b" A aih :=>E>;0 the ractice of .aluing )e)bers of different races differentl"0 is categoricall" )orall" roble)atic0 let alone i))oral. The logic underl"ing this osition leads to a utilitarian singularit"0 as the hiloso her 'eter 5inger correctl" reali9ed0 where .aluing oneself o.er others is li7ewise i))oral. /f course0 again to be clear0 we ha.e no Iual) with those who wish to .alue all eIuall"8 onl" with the )oral osition that this ought to be done :e.g.0 b" us;;. F. Is Racis) I))oral1 /hroughout this discussion, 0e have not touched on the topic of Cracis&C. ' fe0 passing co&&ents are perhaps in order. 't best, Cracis&C is a polyse&e 3at 0orst itPs a hopelessly confused concept4. It has been and is, a&ong other things, used to &ean6 the recognition of biological race and racial differencesB statistical thin-ing about raceB racial hierarchicalis&B e)plicit andQ or i&plicit 3o0n4 racial favoritis& , e)plicit andQ or i&plicit 3other4 racial disfavoritis&B racial social discri&inationB 3o0n4 racial self-deter&inationB 3other4 racial colonialis&B racial chauvinis&B vGl&erhass, etc. Generally, as co&&only defined, the ter& see&s to involves three core &eanings6 racial hierarchicalism 3obJectively ran-ing and ordering racial groups in traits or in intrinsic 0orth6 ;,<,=,@,G,H,K,?4B racial !avoring 3favoring 3typically onePs o0n4 or disfavoring 3typically other4 racial groups6 =,A,H,K,?4B and racial social discrimination 3behaving to0ards individuals differently based on race6 <,=,@,G,A,H,K,?4. +ro& these cores &eanings other can be derived e.g., racis& :ua racial ani&us as a

special type of racial !avoring. 's noted in the previous t0o sections, 0e, ourselves, donPt categorically disavo0 any of these types of racis&. ie0ing racial hierarchicalism as CbadC is si&ply absurd. Cacial pre!erring and racial social discrimination go hand in hand 3li-e &arriage and procreation4B 0ith these, itPs the dose that &a-es the poison. Various #efinitions of Racis)
3;4 C' belief in the superiority or inferiority of peoples based on their presu&ed ethnic characteristics 3#'CE4. #acists often e)trapolate fro& superficial factors such as s-in color to generali,e about group behavior.C 3"orris and "orrisPs. Concise %ictionary of Social and Cultural 'nthropology.4 $%& "the belief that some races are better than others' or the unfair treatment of someone because of his or her race" $(ambridge )ictionaries *nline& "$# 11%7 the belie! that all members o! each race possess characteristics or abilities speci!ic to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as in!erior or superior to another race or races1 1 1%1 pre:udice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone o! a di!!erent race based on the belie! that oneBs own race is superior;1"The Ox!ord Hictionary Online# "I# 11%7 a belie! that race is the primary determinant o! human traits and capacities and that racial di!!erences produce an inherent superiority o! a particular race1 11%1 racial pre:udice or discrimination1 "*erriam9Eebster Online# $+& racism "plural racisms#

;. <. =.
"Ei&tionary#

The belie! that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes% The belie! that one race is superior to all others% 're:udice or discrimination based upon race

"?# 1Hiscrimination, pre:udice, or un!air practice towards someone which occurs solely on the basis o! ethnic group or s&in color%1 "Hayes, et al% "year# Hictionary o! 'sychology# "=# 1a way o! behaving or thin&ing that shows that you do not li&e or respect people who belong to races that are di!!erent !rom your own and that you believe your race is better than others1 "2ac)illan %ictionary .nline4 "6# 1The une4ual treatment o! a population group purely because o! its possession o! physical or other characteristics socially de!ined as denoting a particular race% Cacism is the deterministic belie!9system which sustains racialism, lin&ing these characteristics with negatively valued social, psychological, or physical traits%1 "5cott and *arshallJs + Hictionary o! 5ociology "year## ",# 1're:udice Kattitudes, ideologies, practices, or polices based on an irrational belie! in the inherent in!eriority or those seen as belonging to other Kraces% It involves JotheringJ in terms o! speci!ic speci!ic negative stereotypes o! Kracial di!!erences%%%It re!lects ignorance, disli&e, hatred, or !ear %%% "0handler and *undayJs Hictionary o! *edia and 0ommunication "year##

's for the ter&Ps pedigree, Ety&ology .nline tells us6

#acis&6 ;?=< as a noun, ;?=K as an adJective, fro& race 3n.<4B racis& is first attested ;?=A 3fro& +rench racis&e, ;?=G4, originally in the conte)t of Na,i theories. But they replaced earlier 0ords, racialis& 3;KH;4 and racialist 3;?;H4, both often used early <>c. in a British or South 'frican conte)t. In the *.S., race hatred, race preJudice had been used, and, especially in ;?c. political conte)ts, negrophobia.

/he ;?=< reference refers to East&anPs translation of /rots-yPs P/he !istory of the #ussian #evolution 3;?=<4C. /rots-yPs e&ployed the ter& 3CijklkmnoCBCracistovC4 in conte)t to discussion of the national socialist ideology. Else0here 3in his ;?== Ehat Is 2ational 5ocialismL4 he characteri,es the concept thusly6 Cracis& is a vapid and bo&bastic variety of chauvinis& in alliance 0ith phrenologyC. Google Ngra& sho0s so&e usage of the ter& in the ;K>>s, though one can not be sure if this 0as the authorsP original usage or usage in prefaces 0ritten later. /he Ety&ology .nline, notes that the ter& Cracialis&C proceeds that of racis&B racialis& referred to theories of biological differences a&ong races, theories that usually ca&e along 0ith so&e evaluation 3racial hierarchicalism4.

7ater, post-22II, racis& increasingly ca&e to &ean Crace hatredC or race preJudice 3in the sense of racial disfavoritis&4, 0ithout dropping the other &eanings. 's for the connection bet0een racial hierarchicalism and racial disfavoritis&QvGl&erhass 3a for& of racial !avoritism#, (ohn Si&pson, editor of .)ford English %ictionary .nline, opines 0hy these ter&s are e:uivalent6
C/hey didnPt start out that 0ay, but they are no0 considered one in the sa&e. #acialis& and racialist are older ter&s, dating fro& the early <>th Century. 2hen the 0ords 0ere first used in the early ;?>>s, they loosely referred to se&i-anthropological theories about race. It 0as a 0ay that people tried to legiti&i,e racist beliefs and practices, but over the years scientists reJected such theories. 3"arch ;<, <>>H, CBBC NE2SC4

's Si&pson see&s to see it, Cracis&C really &eans vGl&erhassB racialis& understood can be said to be a for& of this because it has no scientific Justification and so, can only i&aginably represent a poorly rationali,ed racial-hatred.

2hatPs interesting here is that 0hile Cracis&C is consciously used to refer to a collection of related but logically distinct concepts, it is often treated not as a polyse&e but as a synthetic 0hole, as a group of concepts 0hich share a co&&on essence 0hich &a-es the&, on deeper analysis, Cone and the sa&eC. 2e dub this idea Canti-race essentialis&C. By this vie0 there is so&e dar- force or disposition 3letPs call this Crace-thin-ing Pin all of its connotationsPC4 0hich Paffects and d0ells 0ithin each and every one of usP, &anifesting itself in particular for&s of Cracis&C, and, in turn, leading to &oral offenses related to racial groups. 2e noted above that concepts of CraceC 3used in conte)t to populations, not e.g., speeded contests4 have a denotative co&&onality -- ancestry. Non-biological, artificial biological, and natural biological races consistently refer populations defined so&eho0 in ter&s of ancestry. /o so&e e)tent, the &any concepts of Cracis&C can also be said to have a co&&onality. C#acis&C generally connotes, acts, behaviors, and habits, relating to race or ethnos, that are thought by the user to be bad. !ierarchical, favoring, and social discri&ination for&s of racis& are either seen as ipso facto bad or as an antecedent to bad acts. 2e no0 run into the proble&6 there are several racis& concepts, not all are i&&oral in our ordinary sense, and yet they are united in that they connote so&e type of i&&orality. 2e &ight resolve this -not by arguing that a nu&ber of beliefs, habits, and acts called racist are not i&&oralB or that, since racis& connotes i&&orality, these are not racist. /his see&s to do inJustice to co&&on usage, though. So, instead, 0e 0ill si&ply grant that racis& correctly describes the afore&entioned core &eanings and their &any derivatives and that racis& is i&&oral in a sense. 2e 0ill si&ply distinguish bet0een our ordinary sense of &orality and the co&prehensive egalitarian &orality that see&s to unify the &any concepts of racis&. 2e can see racis& then both as a &orally a&biguous polyse&e and as a co&prehensive egalitarian &oral construct. 'nd since 0e have already reJected co&prehensive egalitarianis& 0e have an ans0er to our :uestion, 0hich is6 No, not categorically. /hese are si&ple and obvious considerationsB 0e state the& only because silly &oral obJections crop up ti&e and ti&e again. In clarifying these positions, 0e hope to shortcut such obJections Conclusion 2e 0onPt rehash 0hat 0as said above. Instead 0e 0ill consider one final issue6 the future of hu&an biological races. Not infre:uently is it pronounced, and at ti&es 0ith unconcealed glee, that races are on their 0ay out, finishedB and so&eti&es this conviction is cleverly 0eaved into a teleological argu&ent, of sorts, one 0ith a detectable eschatological flavor6 since sooner than latter they 0onPt e)ist, 0e should treat biological races no0 as if they donPt. /his position is, unfortunately for its proponents, dated. .f course, hu&an races, broadly understood, 0ill continue to be begotten and to e)pire. But the cessation of these races that co&e and go li-e &ayflies are not 0hat is being spo-en of, rather it is the e)piration of the &ost distinctive varieties of &an, varieties shaped and

&olded over thousands of years of relative isolation. 2ere it not for the advances in synthetic biology 0e 0ould concurB globali,ation 0ould inevitably lead to the deraciali,ation of the conspicuous natural populations of &an-ind. If it 0ere not. But neoeugenics and genetic engineering loo& on the hori,on. It is already transfor&ing conservation biology 3Biello, %., <>;=4. In our esti&ate, it 0ill liberate individuals and populations thereof to birth races of a type never seen before. 2ill no peoples ta-e up this chance to recreate the&selves in the i&age of their desire1 Critics of hu&an biological race clai& that the divisions of &an are superficial, trivial, insignificant. 2e i&agine that they 0ill be co&pared to so&e of those to co&e. Perhaps anti-biological racialis& 0ill recreate itself, too, in the future -- so&e0hat ironically into a for& of bioconservatis&. ?'ost 5cri t In the 2est, thin-ing in ter&s of hu&an natural biological divisions is stig&ati,ed. It is fre:uently held that dra0ing such divisions is CunscientificC or CillogicalC. 2e have &ade clear the inanity of this position and brought to light the obscuris& and &endacity inherent in &any if not &ost anti-biological race argu&ents. 2e have also argued that &oral argu&ents against race naturalis& are unsound 0hen rooted in traditional 2estern &orality and episte&ologyB 0e did not, ho0ever, dispute the soundness of these argu&ents 0hen rooted in other &oral syste&s 3e.g., co&prehensive egalitarianis& allied 0ith utilitarian episte&ologies 3e.g., Cscience for the peopleC44. Such argu&ents, of course, represent social deconstructions. 'nd here 0e arrive at a -ey conclusion6 cases against the recognition of biological races 3understood as natural biological populations4 have no e&pirical or logical grounding. 5et they are incessantly &ade and so 0ith great ,eal --because they are &oral ones. "ore specifically, they are &oral ones largely grounded in varieties of co&prehensive egalitarianis&. Given co&&on ter& e&ploy&ent, it 0ould be fair to characteri,e these cases as largely representing species of Cphilosophical and scientific-"ar)is&C, as in6 anti-biological race is largely a scientific-&ar)ist social deconstruct. #evealing the nature of biological antirace, of course, doesnPt constitute an argu&ent against it as a social deconstructB it Just points to 0here this &oral proJect needs to be confronted, if it is to be. @ 'ppendi) ;. 2as %ar0in an Evolutionary Classifier1 Padian 3;???4 and Ghiselin 3<>>@4 have controverted "ayrPs assertion that %ar0in 0as an evolutionary ta)ono&ist 3as defined by e.g., "ayr and 'shloc- 3;?A?4B "ayr and Boc-, <>><4. /hey have &aintained, instead, that %ar0in too- a cladistic vie0. /heir argu&ents, though, resting on te)tual &isinterpretation, are unsustainable. +or e)a&ple, Padian 3;???4 cited the follo0ing state&ent of %ar0in, :uoted fro& "ayr 3;?K<,;??@a46
I believe that the arrange&ent of the groups 0ithin each class0 in due subordination and relation to the other grou s, &ust be strictl" genealogicalB but that the a&ount of difference in the several branches or groups, though allied in the sa&e degree in blood to their co&&on progenitor, &ay differ greatly, being due to the different degrees of &odification 0hich they have undergoneB

and this is ex ressed b" the for)s being ran7ed under different genera0 fa)ilies0 sections0 or orders. NE&phases addedO.

Padian 3;???4 overloo-ed the i&portant :ualification, Cin due subordinationC, fi)ated on the phrase Cstrictly genealogicalC -- &a-ing this out to be an endorse&ent of cladis& --and, finally, interpreted the final clause, 0hich under&ined his e)egesis, as representing not %ar0inPs o0n outloo- but rather %ar0inPs description of the e)isting conventions. Conveniently for his argu&ent, Padian 3;???4 -- see also Ghiselin 3<>>@4 -- failed to present the e)tended, and da&ning for his position, passage fro& 0hich this e)cerpt 0as ta-en. /his, fro& Origin o! 5pecies, reads6
'll the foregoing rules and aids and difficulties in classification &ay be e)plained, if I do not greatly deceive &yself, on the vie0 that the Natural 5"ste) is founded on descent with )odificationB -- that the characters 0hich naturalists consider as sho0ing true affinity bet0een any t0o or &ore species, are those 0hich have been inherited fro& a co&&on parent, all true classifications being genealogical... But I &ust e)plain &yself &ore fully. I belie.e that the arrange)ent of the grou s within each class0 in due subordination and relation to the other grou s0 )ust be strictl" genealogical8 but that the a)ount of difference in the se.eral branches or grou s0 though allied in the sa)e degree in blood to their co))on rogenitor0 )a" differ greatl"0 being due to the different degrees of )odification which the" ha.e undergone8 and this is ex ressed b" the for)s being ran7ed under different genera0 fa)ilies0 sections0 or orders. /he reader 0ill best understand 0hat is &eant, if he ta-e the trouble to refer to the diagra& in the fourth chapter.... 2e 0ill suppose the letters ' to 7 to represent allied genera, 0hich lived during the Silurian epoch, and these have descended fro& a species 0hich e)isted at an un-no0n anterior period. Species of three of these genera 3', +, and I4 have trans&itted &odified descendants to the present day, represented by the fifteen genera 3a;@ to ,;@4 on the upper&ost hori,ontal line. Now all these )odified descendants fro) a single s ecies0 are re resented as related in blood or descent to the sa)e degree8 the" )a" )eta horicall" be called cousins to the sa)e )illionth degree8 "et the" differ widel" and in different degrees fro) each other. The for)s descended fro) A0 now bro7en u into two or three fa)ilies0 constitute a distinct order fro) those descended fro) I0 also bro7en u into two fa)ilies. Nor can the existing s ecies0 descended fro) A0 be ran7ed in the sa)e genus with the arent A8 or those fro) I0 with the arent I. But the existing genus (=G )a" be su osed to ha.e been but slightl" )odified8 and it will then ran7 with the arent-genus (8 4ust as so)e few still li.ing organic beings belong to 5ilurian genera. So that the a&ount or value of the differences bet0een organic beings all related to each other in the sa&e degree in blood, has co&e to be 0idely different. Ne.ertheless their genealogical arrangement re)ains strictl" true0 not onl" at the resent ti)e0 but at each successi.e eriod of descent. All the )odified descendants fro) A will ha.e inherited so)ething in co))on fro) their co))on arent0 as will all the descendants fro) I8 so will it be with each subordinate branch of descendants0 at each successi.e eriod.. ...'ll the descendants of the genus +, along its 0hole line of descent, are supposed to have been but little &odified, and they yet for& a single genus. But this genus, though &uch isolated, 0ill still occupy its proper inter&ediate positionB for + originally 0as inter&ediate in character bet0een ' and I, and the several genera descended fro& these t0o genera 0ill have inherited to a certain e)tent their characters. /his natural arrange&ent is sho0n, as far as is possible on paper, in the diagra&, but in &uch too si&ple a &anner. If a branching diagra& had not been used, and only the na&es of the groups had been 0ritten in a linear series, it 0ould have been still less possible to have given a natural arrange&entB and it is notoriously not possible to represent in a series, on a flat surface, the affinities 0hich 0e discover in nature a&ongst the beings of the sa&e group. Thus0 on the .iew which I hold0 the natural s"ste) is genealogical in its arrange)ent0 li7e a edigree8 but the degrees of )odification which the different grou s ha.e undergone0 ha.e to be ex ressed b"

ran7ing the) under different so-called genera0 sub-fa)ilies0 fa)ilies0 sections0 orders0 and classes. NE&phasis addedO.

!o0 this passage could be co&prehended as an endorse&ent of cladistic contra evolutionary classification befuddles us. %ar0in clearly stated that a natural classificatory syste& 0as one based on descent with modi!ication. 'nd he 0as clear that such a classification, one ta-ing into account &odification, is, nonetheless, a Cstrict genealogicalC one in arrangement. Nu&erous si&ilar state&ents by %ar0in lend the&selves to the conclusion that he did not endorse cladis&. !e 0rote, for e)a&ple6 C.ther0ise NNaudinO 0ould see that genealogy by itself does not give classificationC and CIn case of classiTcation, descent alone, as I believe I have sho0n, 0ill not doB you &ust co&bine principle of divergence of character a descent fro& do&inant for&s.C NE&phasis added.O Curiously, Ghiselin 3<>>@4 noted these e)cerpts but dis&issed the&, saying, 0ith no further ado6 CNtOhere is nothing in these 0ords that argues for hierarchical ran- indicating &ore than the e)tent of cladogenesisC. /o bolster his case, Ghiselin 3<>>@4 :uoted the follo0ing fro& Hescent o! *an6
/his syste&, it is no0 generally ad&itted, &ust be, as far as possible, genealogical in arrange)ent Q that is0 the co-descendants of the sa)e for) )ust be 7e t together in one grou 0 se arate fro) the co-descendants of an" other for)B but if the parent-for&s are related, so 0ill be their descendants, and the t0o groups together 0ill for& a larger group. The a)ount of difference between the se.eral grou s Q that is the a)ount of )odiScation which each has undergone Q will be ex ressed b" such ter)s as genera0 fa)ilies0 orders0 and classes. ?E) hasis added@.

%espite this passage e)pressing a position identical to that :uoted above fro& the Origin o! 5pecies, Ghiselin 3<>>@4 &anaged to conclude6
!ere %ar0in says that the groups &ust be &onophyletic, but that a&ount of difference 0ill be e)pressed. 2hat he &eans is that it is obligatory for the groups in a natural syste& to be &onophyletic and that the a&ount of difference 0ill follo0 as a conse:uence of that. !e is not saying that a&ount of difference is so&ething that has to be superi&posed upon the genealogical ne)us.

Be"ond reason0 !hiselin :BCCG; inter reted the last Iuoted sentence as re resenting a logical conseIuence of the first sentence0 des ite #arwin elsewhere )a7ing note of the not infreIuent dis4unction between descent and )odiScation. In this assage0 #arwin used the sa)e hrasing as in the assage Iuoted fro) /rigin :e.g.0 3genealogical in arrange)ent3;8 the )eaning of the assage is no different: natural classifications are not polyphyletic8 not: natural classifications )ust be )ono h"letic ros ecti.el" understood. +e )ight go through nu)erous other state)ents0 but doing so will not alter the conclusion. To ta7e one final0 #arwin0 when directl" addressing the issue in ,he )escent of Man0 stated:
If 0e i&agine three lines of descent proceeding fro& a co&&on stoc-, it is :uite conceivable that t0o of the& &ight after the lapse of ages be so slightly changed as still to re&ain as species of the sa&e genus, whilst the third line )ight beco)e so greatl" )odified as to deser.e to ran7 as a distinct sub-fa)il"0 or e.en /rder. But in this case it is al&ost certain that the third line 0ould still retain through inheritance nu&erous s&all points of rese&blance 0ith the other t0o. 6ere0 then0 would occur the difficult"0 at resent insoluble0 how )uch weight we ought to assign in

our classifications to strongl"-)ar7ed differences in so)e few oints0- that is0 to the a)ount of )odification undergone8 and how )uch to close rese)blance in nu)erous uni) ortant oints0 as indicating the lines of descent or genealog". /o attach &uch 0eight to the fe0 but strong differences is the &ost obvious and perhaps the safest course, though it a ears )ore correct to a" great attention to the &any s&all rese&blances, as giving a truly natural classification. NE&phasis added.O

So&eho0, the position that it is C&ore correct to pay great attentionC to descent than to attach C&uch 0eightC to &odification in Cso&e fe0 pointsC is seen as a ringing endorse&ent for cladis& --- the position that one should only pay attention to descent and should give no 0eight to &odification. In actuality %ar0in, li-e $ant prior, distinguished bet0een arrange&ents based on genealogy and those based solely on phenetic si&ilarity. !e sa0 the for&er as being natural and the latter as being artificial. By his vie0, natural classifications are genealogical based, but genealogy isnPt the sole basis for classificationB rese&blance 0hich does not strictly inde) pedigree &atters. But 0as %ar0in an Evolutionary /a)ono&ist1 "ayr &a-es it clear that Evolutionary /a)ono&ic classifications are based on genotypic si&ilarity. Genealogical si&ilarity, understood in the narro0 sense of retrospective &onophyly, accounts for this si&ilarity in Cgenetic progra&C. Because of this, evolutionary classifications necessarily are genealogical ones in the retrospective sense -- or, to use %ar0inPs phrase, in arrange&ent. /o give readers a sense of the position, 0e 0ill Just :uote so&e passages fro& "ayr and 'shloc- 3;?A?46
NiOf one of the lines is e)posed to severe selection pressures and as a result diverges dra&atically fro& its genealogically nearest relative, it &ay beco&e genetically so different that it 0ould be a biological absurdity to continue calling the& near relatives. Even though are cladistically nearest to birds 3both having descended fro& the pseudosuchians4, the crocodilians are still closer to &any of the other reptiles, as far as total gene co&position is concerned than they are to birds N.O .nce 0e accept the basic principle of biological classification, that organis& are to be classified according to the infor&ation content of their genetic progra&, it is evident that NretrospectiveO &onophyly &ust be re:uired. 'rtificial ta)a, containing descendants of different ancestors, 0ould be unable to fill the de&and one places on scientific theory, o0ing to the heterogeneity of the included genetic progra&s. /he evolutionist believes that a classification consistent 0ith our reconstruction of phylogeny has a better chance of &eeting these obJectives than any other &ethod of classification. /a)a deli&ited in such a 0ay as to coincide 0ith phylogenic groups 3lineages4 are apt not only to share the greatest nu&ber of Joint attributes, but at the sa&e ti&e to have an e)planatory basis for there e)istence.

/o us, this position see&s to &ore than less correspond 0ith that held by %ar0in. 2hile %ar0in e&phasi,ed genealogy, he reali,ed that classifications involved so&ething &ore and he reJected the cladistPs prospective &onophyletic approach. 2e i&agine that, if %a0in had a clear concept of CgenotypeC, he 0ould have seen this as the ideal basis for biological classifications. #eferences

'P!earn, B., Baten, (., a Crayen, %. 3<>>?4. Duantifying :uantitative literacy6 'ge heaping and the history of hu&an capital. The Mournal o! Dconomic History, ?,3>=4, HK=K>K. '&adon, %. ;?@?. /he seventy-five percent rule for subspecies. Condor G;6<G>S<GK. 'llaby, ". 3Ed.4. 3<>;>4. ' dictionary of ecology. .)ford *niversity Press. 'lland, '. 3<>>@4. #ace in &ind6 #ace, ID, and other racis&s. "ac&illan. 'ndreasen, #. .. 3;??K4. ' ne0 perspective on the race debate. /he British Journal for the philosophy of science, @?3<4, ;??-<<G. 'ndreasen, #. .. 3<>>>4. #ace6 biological reality or social construct1. Philosophy of Science, SAG=-SAAA. 'ndreasen, #. .. 3<>>@4. /he cladistic race concept6 a defense. Biology and Philosophy, ;?3=4, @<G-@@<. 'ndreasen, #. .. 3<>>G4. /he &eaning ofPraceP6 +ol- conceptions and the ne0 biology of race. The Mournal o! philosophy, 17 3<4, ?@-;>A. 'ndreasen, #. .. 3<>>H4. Biological conceptions of race. Philosophy of Biology, @GG@K;. 'ppiah, '. 3;?KG4. /he unco&pleted argu&ent6 %u Bois and the illusion of race. Critical in:uiry, ;<3;4, <;-=H. 'ppiah, $. '. 3;??@4. Identity, authenticity, survival6 "ulticultural societies and social reproduction. *ulticulturalism; Dxamining the politics o! recognition, 1N7, ;@. 'ppiah, $. '., a Gut&ann, '. 3;??K4. Color conscious6 /he political &orality of race. Princeton *niversity Press. 'ulchen-o, 5. S. 3<>;>4. Effects of population structure in geno&e-0ide association studies. 'nalysis of Co&ple) %isease 'ssociation Studies6 ' Practical Guide, ;<=. Bec:uet, C., Patterson, N., Stone, '. C., Pr,e0ors-i, "., a #eich, %. 3<>>H4. Genetic structure of chi&pan,ee populations. P7oS Genetics, =3@4, eAA. Ba-er, (. #. 3;?H@4. #ace .)ford6 .)ford *niversity Press. Ba&shad, ". (., 2ooding, S., 2at-ins, 2. S., .stler, C. /., Bat,er, ". '., a (orde, 7. B. 3<>>=4. !u&an population genetic structure and inference of group &e&bership. The +merican Mournal o! Human -enetics, = 3=4, GHK-GK?.

BarbuJani, G., a Colonna, . 3<>;>4. !u&an geno&e diversity6 fre:uently as-ed :uestions. Trends in -enetics, ?3H4, <KG-<?G. BarbuJani, G., Ghirotto, S., a /assi, +. 3<>;=4. Nine things to re&e&ber about hu&an geno&e diversity. /issue antigens, K<3=4, ;GG-;A@. BarbuJani, G., "agagni, '., "inch, E., a Cavalli-Sfor,a, 7. 7. 3;??H4. 'n apportion&ent of hu&an %N' diversity. 'roceedings o! the 2ational +cademy o! 5ciences, ,I3?4, @G;A@G;?. BarbuJani, G., a Pigliucci, ". 3<>;=4. !u&an races. Current biology6 CB, <=3G4, #;KG-H. Barreiro, 7. B., 7aval, G., Duach, !., Patin, E., a Duintana-"urci, 7. 3<>>K4. Natural selection has driven population differentiation in &odern hu&ans. Nature genetics, @>3=4, =@>-=@G. Baten, (., a (uif, %. 3<>;=4. ' story of large lando0ners and &ath s-ills6 Ine:uality and hu&an capital for&ation in long-run develop&ent, ;K<>S<>>>. Mournal o! 0omparative Dconomics. Baten, (., a Sohn, $. 3<>;=4. /ac& to theJnormalJlevel o! human9capital driven growthL + note on early numeracy in @orea, 0hina and Mapan, 1NN791677 3No. G<4. *niversity of /^bingen 2or-ing Papers in econo&ics and finance. Beaver, $. "., a 2right, (. P. 3<>;;4. School-level genetic variation predicts school-level verbal ID scores6 #esults fro& a sa&ple of '&erican &iddle and high schools. Intelligence, =?3@4, ;?=-;?H. +ranpois Bernier, PNouvelle %ivision de la /erre, par les differentes Espqces ou #aces dPho&&es :ui lPhabitentP, (ournal des Spavans ;< 3;AK@4, ;@KSGG Biello, %. 3<>;=, "arch4. Efforts to #esuscitate E)tinct Species "ay Spa0n a Ne0 Era of the !ybrid. Scientific '&erica. #etrieved fro&6 http6QQ000.scientifica&erican.co&Qarticle.cf&1idVlost-species-revived-fro&-dna-andrestored-to-nature Bliss, C. 3<>;<4. #ace decoded6 /he geno&ic fight for social Justice. Stanford *niversity Press. Bhatia, G., Patterson, N., San-arara&an, S., a Price, '. 7. 3<>;=4. Esti&ating and interpreting +S/6 /he i&pact of rare variants. Geno&e research, <=3?4, ;G;@-;G<;. Bird, '. and /obin, E. CNatural $indsC. /he Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 32inter <>;< Edition4, #etrieved fro&6 http6QQplato.stanford.eduQentriesQnatural--indsQ Blu&enbach, (. +., a Bendyshe, /. /. 3;KAG4. .n the natural variety of &an-ind, ;H?G.

Bo0coc-, '. "., #ui,-7inares, '., /o&fohrde, (., "inch, E., $idd, (. #., a CavalliSfor,a, 7. 7. 3;??@4. !igh resolution of hu&an evolutionary trees 0ith poly&orphic &icrosatellites. nature, =AK3A@H>4, @GG-@GH. Boyd, 2. C. 3;?G>4. Genetics and the #aces of "an 3p. @G=4. Blac-0ell. Ed0ard N. Ialta 3ed.4 Brody, !., a !unt, 7. ". Bi%il6 'ssessing a #ace-Based Phar&aceutical 'nn +a& "ed <>>A @6 GGA-GA>B doi6 ;>.;=H>Qaf&. GK<. Bronfenbrenner, *., a Evans, G. 2. 3<>>>4. %evelop&ental science in the <;st century6 E&erging :uestions, theoretical &odels, research designs and e&pirical findings. 5ocial development, ,3;4, ;;G-;<G. Brues, '. ". 3;?HH4. People and races 3p. ;>=4. Ne0 5or-6 "ac&illan. Brues, '. ". 3;??>4. /he once and future diagnosis of race. S-eletal 'ttribution of #ace "ethods for +orensic 'nthropology "a)0ell "useu& of 'nthropology6 *niversity of Ne0 "e)ico, ;-?. Brues, '. ". 3;??<4. C+orensic %iagnosis of #aceF General #ace vs Specific PopulationsC. Social Science a "edicine. =@. 3(anuary46 ;<GS<K. Calafell, +., Shuster, '., Speed, 2. C., $idd, (. #., a $idd, $. $. 3;??K4. Short tande& repeat poly&orphis& evolution in hu&ans. Duropean Mournal o! Human -enetics, ?3;4, =K-@?. Ca&pbell, ". C., a /ish-off, S. '. 3<>>K4. 'frican genetic diversity6 i&plications for hu&an de&ographic history, &odern hu&an origins, and co&ple) disease &apping. 'nnual revie0 of geno&ics and hu&an genetics, ?, @>=. Ca&pbell, ". C., a /ish-off, S. '. 3<>;>4. /he evolution of hu&an genetic and phenotypic variation in 'frica. Current biology, <>3@4, #;AA-#;H=. Caspari, #. 3<>>?4. ;?;K6 /hree perspectives on race and hu&an variation. +merican :ournal o! physical anthropology, 1$,3;4, G-;G. Cavalli-Sfor,a, 7. 7., and Bod&er, 2. 3;?HA4. /he Genetics of !u&an Populations. San +rancisco6 +ree&an.Chollett, %. 7. 3<>;;4. #eflections on reflections6 dialectical co&&entaries on gender and class in N/'E production. %ialectical anthropology, =G3<4, ;KH-;?@. Cheng, C. 5., #eich, %., !ai&an, C. '., /andon, '., Patterson, N., Eli,abeth, S., ... a $ao, 2. 7. 3<>;<4. 'frican ancestry and its correlation to type < diabetes in 'frican '&ericans6 a genetic ad&i)ture analysis in three *S population cohorts. 'lo5 one, =3=4, e=<K@>.

Chiao, (. 5. 3<>>?4. Cultural neuroscience6 a once and future discipline. Progress in brain research, ;HK, <KH-=>@. Chiao, (. 5., a '&bady, N. 3<>;>4. Cultural neuroscience. !andboo- of cultural psychology. Christainsen, G. B. 3<>;=4. ID and the 0ealth of nations6 !o0 &uch reverse causality1. Intelligence, @;3G4, AKK-A?K. Clar-, G. 3<>;@4. The 5on +lso Cises; 5urnames and the History o! 5ocial *obility. Princeton *niversity Press. Cochran, G., a !arpending, !. 3<>>?4. The 17,777 year explosion; How civilization accelerated human evolution. Basic Boo-s. Coon, C. S. 3;?A<4. /he origin of races. Coyne, (. 3<>;<, +ebruary <K4. 're there hu&an races1 #etrieved fro&6 http6QQ0hyevolutionistrue.0ordpress.co&Q<>;<Q><Q<KQare-there-hu&an-racesQ Cro0, (. +. 3<>><4. *ne:ual by nature6 ' geneticistPs perspective on hu&an differences. %aedalus, ;=;3;4, K;-KK. %alton, B. 2. 3<>;;4. <5 Dducational +chievement on International +ssessments; The Cole o! Cace and Dthnicity. %a&a, ". S. 3<>;=4. Cognitive ability correlates positively 0ith son birth and predicts cross-cultural variation of the offspring se) ratio. Natur0issenschaften, ;-;;. %angerous 0or-. Behavioural geneticists &ust tread carefully to prevent their research being &isinterpreted NEditorialO. 3<>;=, .ctober, ><4, Nature. p. G-A. #etrived fro&6 https6QQ000.&adina&erica.co&Q<>;=Q;>Qdangerous-0or--behavioural-geneticists-&usttread-carefully-prevent-research-&isinterpretedQ %ar0in, C. #. ;KG?. On the origin o! species by means o! natural selection, or the preservation o! !avoured races in the struggle !or li!e. 7ondon6 (ohn "urray. N;st editionO #etrived fro&6 http6QQdar0inonline.org.u-QEditorialIntroductionsQ+ree&anh.nthe.riginofSpecies.ht&l %ar0in, C. 3;KA<4. .n the various contrivances by 0hich British and foreign orchids are fertili,ed. *urray, >ondon, $?N. %e la #osa-#eyna, c. +., Calderrn-7obato, #. %., Parra-Braca&onte, G. "., Sifuentes#incrn, '. "., %e5oung, #. 2., Garcsa-%e 7ern, +. (., a 'rellano- era, 2. 3<>;<4.

Genetic diversity and structure a&ong subspecies of 0hite-tailed deer in "e)ico. (ournal of "a&&alogy, ?=3@4, ;;GK-;;AK. %ic-ens, 2. /., a +lynn, (. #. 3<>>;4. !eritability esti&ates versus large environ&ental effects6 the ID parado) resolved. Psychological revie0, ;>K3<4, =@A. %ob,hans-y, /. 3;?@@4. Chro&oso&al races in %rosophila pseudoobscura and %rosophila persi&ilis. Carnegie Inst. 2ashington Publ, GG@, @H-;@@. %ob,hans-y, /. 3;?@A4. /he genetic nature of differences a&ong &en. 5ale *niversity Press. %ob,hans-y, /., a %ob,hans-y, /. G. 3;?H>4. Genetics of the evolutionary process 3 ol. ;=?4. Colu&bia *niversity Press. %oron, C. .. 3<>;<4. #ace and Genealogy6 Buffon and the +or&ation of the Concept of U#aceE. D% 0asetta O 3% Tripodi, *a&ing 5ense o! -ender, 5ex, Cace, and the .amily, Humana% *ente Mournal o! 'hilosophical 5tudies, , HG-;>?. %ragt, (. 3<>;>4. Causes of group differences studied 0ith the &ethod of correlated vectors6 ' psycho&etric &eta-analysis of Spear&anEs hypothesis. Elhai-, E. 3<>;<4. E&pirical distributions of +S/ fro& large-scale hu&an poly&orphis& data. PloS one, H3;;4, e@?K=H. Ereshefs-y " 3<>>K4 Syste&atics and ta)ono&y. In6 Sar-ar S, Plutyns-i ' 3eds4 /he Blac-0ell co&panion to the philosophy of biology. Blac-0ell, .)ford, pp ??S;;K E,e, E. C. 3;??H4. /he color of reason6 /he idea of UraceEin $antEs anthropology. Postcolonial african philosophy6 a critical reader, ;>=-;@>. +ish, (. ". 3Ed.4. 3<>;=4. #ace and intelligence6 Separating science fro& &yth. #outledge. +rost, P. 3<>;;4. !u&an nature or hu&an natures1. +utures, @=3K4, H@>-H@K. +uentes 3<>>>4. /he concept of race6 /o be or not to be ( +uerst. 3<>;=, (anuary ;G4. ;>> years of /esting Negro Intelligence. #etrieved fro&6 http6QQhu&anvarieties.orgQ<>;=Q>;Q;GQ;>>-years-of-testing-negro-intelligenceQ

Color Differences: Corrections and Further Analysis. Part 2 . Retrie.ed fro):

, (uerst. :BC=F0 A ril CH;. htt :PPhu)an.arieties.orgPBC=FPCGPCHPcolor-differences-corrections-and-furtheranal"sis- art-BP

L&Vs (2012) National IQs predict 2011-2012 GRE scores for 114 citizenship groups, 2010 + 2012 TOEFL scores for 157 citizenship groups, PISA scores of migrants from 62 nations of origin across 17 destination nations, 19th century (birth cohort 1820) numeracy rates across 54 nations, and early 20th century (birth cohort 1890) numeracy across 129 nations. Retrie.ed
, (uerst. :BC=G0 (ebruar" ==;. fro): htt :PPhu)an.arieties.orgPBC=GPCBP==Pl.s-BC=B-national-iIs- redict-BC==BC=B-gre-scores-for-==G-citi9enshi -grou s-BC=C-BC=B-toefl-scores-for-=JHciti9enshi -grou s- isa-scores-of-)igrants-fro)-KB-nations-of-origin-across-=P , (uerst. :BC=G0 (ebruar" ==;. -TVDs :BC=B; National INs redict BC==-BC=B !RE scores for ==G citi9enshi grou s0 BC=C A BC=B T/E(- scores for =JH citi9enshi grou s0 'I5A scores of )igrants fro) KB nations of origin across =H destination nations0 =>th centur" :birth cohort =EBC; nu)erac" rates across JG nations0 and earl" BCth centur" :birth cohort =E>C; nu)erac" across =B> nations. Retrie.ed fro): htt :PPhu)an.arieties.orgPBC=GPCBP==Pl.s-BC=B-national-iIs- redict-BC==BC=B-gre-scores-for-==G-citi9enshi -grou s-BC=C-BC=B-toefl-scores-for-=JHciti9enshi -grou s- isa-scores-of-)igrants-fro)-KB-nations-of-origin-across-=P Garcia, (. #., "ac$illop, (., 'ller, E. 7., "erri0ether, '. "., 2ilson, %. S., a 7u&, (. $. 3<>;>4. 'ssociations bet0een dopa&ine %@ receptor gene variation 0ith both infidelity and se)ual pro&iscuity. P7oS .ne, G3;;4, e;@;A<. Garn, S. ". 3;?H;4. !u&an races. /ho&as. Garn, S. "., a Coon, C. S. 3;?GG4. .n the Nu&ber of #aces of "an-ind;. '&erican 'nthropologist, GH3G4, ??A-;>>;. Gao, c., a "artin, E. #. 3<>>?4. *sing allele sharing distance for detecting hu&an population stratification. !u&an heredity, AK3=4, ;K<-;?;. Gao, c., a Star&er, (. 3<>>H4. !u&an population structure detection via &ultilocus genotype clustering. B"C genetics, K3;4, =@.

Gedahlia, B. 3<>>H4, Cacism, -uilt and 5el!9Heceit, 3Self-Published4 Gelade, G. '. 3<>>K4. /he geography of ID. Intelligence, =A3A4, @?G-G>;. Ghiselin, ". /. 3<>>@4. "ayr and Boc- versus %ar0in on genealogical classification. Mournal o! Poological 5ystematics and Dvolutionary Cesearch, I 3<4, ;AG-;A?. Gill, G. 2. 3;??K4. Craniofacial criteria in the s-eletal attribution of race. 'dvances in the identification of hu&an re&ains, <nd edn. Charles C. /ho&as, Springfield, <?=-=;H. Gordon, #. '. 3;??H4. Everyday life as an intelligence test6 Effects of intelligence and intelligence conte)t. Intelligence, <@3;4, <>=-=<>. Gottfredson, 7. S. 3<>>H4. ;H Innovation, fatal accidents, and the evolution of general intelligence. Integrating the mind; Homain general versus domain speci!ic processes in higher cognition, =KH. Gottfredson, 7. S. 3<>;<4. #esolute ignorance on race and #ushton. Personality and Individual %ifferences. Gould, S. (. 3;?K@4. !u&an e:uality is a contingent fact of history. Natural !istory, ?=3;;4, <A-==. Grall, 7. 3<>;<4. Ice 'ge Cli&ate, So&atic Capital, and the /i&ing of the Neolithic /ransition. Gregor, (. 2., a 7ang, (. ". S. 3;?=A4. E)peri&ental /a)ono&y I. E)peri&ental Garden /echni:ue in #elation to the #ecognition of the S&all /a)ono&ic *nits. Ne0 Phytologist, =G3@4, =<=-=G>. Groves, C. 3<>>@4. /he 0hat, 0hy and ho0 of pri&ate ta)ono&y. International (ournal of Pri&atology, <G3G4, ;;>G-;;<A. Groves, C., a Grubb, P. 3<>;;4. *ngulate ta)ono&y. (!* Press. !ac-ing, I. 3<>>G4. 2hy race still &atters. %aedalus, ;=@3;4, ;><-;;A. !anihara, /. 3<>>K4. "orphological variation of &aJor hu&an populations based on non&etric dental traits. '&erican Journal of physical anthropology, ;=A3<4, ;A?-;K<. !ardi&on, ". .. 3<>;<4. /he Idea of a Scientific Concept of #ace. (ournal of Philosophical #esearch, =H, <@?-<K<. !ardi&on, ". .. 3<>;=4. #ace concepts in &edicine. (ournal of "edicine and Philosophy, =K3;4, A-=;.

!art, ". !. 3<>>H4. <nderstanding human history; +n analysis including the e!!ects o! geography and di!!erential evolution. 2ashington Su&&it Publishers. !eller, #., a Siegis&und, !. #. 3<>>?4. #elationship bet0een three &easures of genetic differentiation GS/, %ES/ and GES/6 ho0 0rong have 0e been1. *olecular Dcology, 163;>4, <>K>-<>K=. !enry, %. 3<>>A4. 'ristotle on the "echanis&s of Inheritance. Mournal o! the History o! /iology, @<G-@GG. !errde,, %. 7., Bauchet, "., /ang, $., /heunert, C., Pugach, I., 7i, (., ... a Stone-ing, ". 3<>>?4. Genetic variation and recent positive selection in 0orld0ide hu&an populations6 evidence fro& nearly ; &illion SNPs. PloS one, @3;;4, eHKKK. !arpending, !. 3<>><4. $inship and population subdivision. Population and Environ&ent, <@3<4, ;@;-;@H. !aslanger, S. 3<>>K4. ' social constructionist analysis of race. #evisiting race in a geno&ic age, GA-A?. !eard, G., $hoo, S. E., a Birrell, B. 3<>>?4. I2TDC*+CCI+-D I2 +<5TC+>I+; 'atterns by birthplace, ancestry, religion and indigenous status. "onash *niversity. Centre for Population and *rban #esearch. !enry, %. 3<>>A4. 'ristotle on the "echanis&s of Inheritance. (ournal of the !istory of Biology, @<G-@GG. !enry, %. 3<>;;4. 'ristotlePs Pluralistic #ealis&. The *onist, ,I3<4, ;?K-<<<. !och&an, '. 3<>;=4. #acial discri&ination6 !o0 not to do it. Studies in !istory and Philosophy of Science Part C6 Studies in !istory and Philosophy of Biological and Bio&edical Sciences. !olsinger, $. E., a 2eir, B. S. 3<>>?4. Genetics in geographically structured populations6 defining, esti&ating and interpreting +S/. Nature #evie0s Genetics, ;>3?4, A=?-AG>. !ooton, E. '. 3;?<A4. "ethods of racial analysis. Science, A=3;A<;4, HG-K;. !orandl, E., a Stuessy, /. +. 3<>;>4. Paraphyletic groups as natural units of biological classification. /a)on, G?3A4, ;A@;-;AG=.

A Meta-Analysis of Jensen Effect on Heritability and Environmentality of Cognitive Tests Using the Method of Correlated Vectors.
2 6u. :BC=F0 August =E;. Retri.ed fro): hu)an.arieties.orgPBC=FPCEP=EPa-)eta-anal"sis-of-4ensen-effect-onheritabilit"-and-en.iron)entalit"-of-cogniti.e-tests-using-the-)ethod-of-correlated.ectorsP

Race-SES Interaction : Some Evidence of Increasing Black-White IQ Differences With SES Levels From Various Survey Data. Retri.ed
2 6u :BC=F0 /ctober BC;. fro): htt :PPhu)an.arieties.orgPBC=FP=CPBCPrace-ses-interaction-so)e-e.idence-ofincreasing-blac7-white-iI-differences-with-ses-le.els-fro)-.arious-sur.e"-dataP !ubbe, "., !anihara, /., a !arvati, $. 3<>>?4. Cli&ate signatures in the &orphological differentiation of 0orld0ide &odern hu&an populations. /he 'nato&ical #ecord, <?<3;;4, ;H<>-;H==. !udson, N. 3;??A4. +ro&C nationC toC raceC6 /he origin of racial classification in eighteenth-century thought. Eighteenth-Century Studies, <?3=4, <@H-<A@. !ull, %. 7. 3;?AG4. /he effect of essentialis& on ta)ono&y--t0o thousand years of stasis 3I4. /he British (ournal for the Philosophy of Science, ;G3A>4, =;@-=<A !ulse, +. S. 3;?A<4. #ace as an evolutionary episode. '&erican 'nthropologist, A@3G4, ?<?-?@G. !u)ley, (. S. 3;?=?4. Clines6 an au)iliary &ethod in ta)ono&y. BiJdr. %ier-, <H, @?;-G<>. Irish, (.%. 3;??K4. 'ncestral dental traits in recent Sub-Saharan 'fricans and the origins of &odern hu&ans, (ournal of !u&an Evolution, =@, K;-?K. (ac-son (r, (. P., a 2eid&an, N. ". 3<>>@4. #ace, racis&, and science6 Social i&pact and interaction. 'bc-Clio. (a-obsson, "., Edge, ". %., a #osenberg, N. '. 3<>;=4. /he relationship bet0een +S/ and the fre:uency of the &ost fre:uent allele. Genetics, ;?=3<4, G;G-G<K. (a-obsson, "., Schol,, S. 2., Scheet, P., Gibbs, (. #., an7iere, (. "., +ung, !. C., ... a Singleton, '. B. 3<>>K4. Genotype, haplotype and copy-nu&ber variation in 0orld0ide hu&an populations. Nature, @G;3H;K;4, ??K-;>>=. (a&es, "ichael, C#aceC, The 5tan!ord Dncyclopedia o! 'hilosophy 32inter <>;< Edition4, Ed0ard N. Ialta 3ed.4, *#7 V _http6QQplato.stanford.eduQarchivesQ0in<>;<QentriesQraceQX.

(ayaratne, /. E., 5barra, .., Sheldon, (. P., Bro0n, /. N., +eldbau&, "., Pfeffer, C. '., a Petty, E. ". 3<>>A4. 2hite '&ericansP genetic lay theories of race differences and se)ual orientation6 /heir relationship 0ith preJudice to0ard Blac-s, and gay &en and lesbians. -roup 'rocesses O Intergroup Celations, ,3;4, HH-?@. (efferson, /. 3;HK;4. 2otes on the 5tate o! 3irginia. (ensen, '. #. 3;??K4. The g !actor; The science o! mental ability. 2estport, C/6 Praeger. #alliard0 :BC=F0 A ril CH;. 5 ear)anDs h" othesis and the N-5M>H-A5VAB0 art B. Retrie.ed fro): htt :PPhu)an.arieties.orgPBC=FPC=PB>Ps ear)ans-h" othesis-andthe-nls">H-as.ab- art-BP (orde, 7. B., Ba&shad, "., a #ogers, '. #. 3;??K4. *sing &itochondrial and nuclear %N' &ar-ers to reconstruct hu&an evolution. Bioessays, <>3<4, ;<A-;=A. (orde, 7. B., #ogers, '. #., Ba&shad, "., 2at-ins, 2. S., $ra-o0ia-, P., Sung, S., ... a !arpending, !. C. 3;??H4. "icrosatellite diversity and the de&ographic history of &odern hu&ans. 'roceedings o! the 2ational +cademy o! 5ciences, ,I3H4, =;>>-=;>=. (orde, 7. B., 2at-ins, 2. S., Ba&shad, ". (., %i)on, ". E., #ic-er, C. E., Seielstad, ". /., a Bat,er, ". '. 3<>>>4. /he distribution of hu&an genetic diversity6 a co&parison of &itochondrial, autoso&al, and 5-chro&oso&e data. /he '&erican (ournal of !u&an Genetics, AA3=4, ?H?-?KK. (orde, 7. B., a 2ooding, S. P. 3<>>@4. Genetic variation, classification andPraceP. Nature genetics, =A, S<K-S==. (ost, 7. .. *. 3<>>K4. GS/ and its relatives do not &easure differentiation. "olecular Ecology, ;H3;K4, @>;G-@><A. (uif, %. /., a Baten, (. 3<>;=4. .n the hu&an capital of Inca Indios before and after the Spanish Con:uest. 2as there a 8Pre-Colonial 7egacy91. Dxplorations in Dconomic History, N73<4, <<H-<@;. (ussi&, 7., Cain, /. #., Cra0ford, (. /., !arber, $., a Cohen, +. 3<>>?4. ;> /he *nbearable 'ccuracy of Stereotypes. !andboo- of preJudice, stereotyping, and discri&ination, ;??. $ant, I. 3;HHH4. .n the different !u&an #aces. $ant, I. 3;HKK4. .n the use of teleological principles in philosophy. $aplan, (. ". 3<>;;4. U#aceE6 2hat Biology Can /ell *s about a Social Construct.

$aplan, (. ". #ace, ID, and the search for statistical signals associated 0ith so-called 8c9-factors6 environ&ents, racis&, and the 8hereditarian hypothesis9. /iology O 'hilosophy, ;-;H. $as,yc-a, $. '., Ytr-alJ, G., a Str,at-o, (. 3<>>?4. Current vie0s of European anthropologists on race6 Influence of educational and ideological bac-ground. '&erican 'nthropologist, ;;;3;4, @=-GA. $as,yc-a, $. '., a Str,at-o, (. 3<>>=4. #ace6 /radition and convenience, or ta)ono&ic reality1 "ore on the race concept in Polish anthropology $eita, S. .. 3;??=4. /he subspecies concept in ,oology and anthropology6 ' brief historical revie0 and test of a classification sche&e. (ournal of Blac- Studies, @;A-@@G. $eita, S. .. 5., $ittles, #. '., #oyal, C. %. "., Bonney, G. E., +urbert-!arris, P., %unston, G. "., a #oti&i, C. N. 3<>>@4. Conceptuali,ing hu&an variation. Nature genetics, =A, S;H-S<>. $elly, %., "achery, E., a "allon, #. 3<>;>4. #ace and racial cognition. $ing, #. C., a Stansfield, 2. %. 3;??>4. Encyclopedic dictionary of genetics. C! erlagsgesellschaft &b!. $itcher, Philip. 3;???4. C#ace, Ethnicity, Biology, Culture.C In6 #acis&. Edited by 7eonard !arris. pp. KHS;;H. $itcher, P. 3<>>H4. %oes UraceEhave a future1. Philosophy a Public 'ffairs, =G3@4, <?==;H. $urtun, B. 3;?AK4. Pleistocene &a&&als of Europe. /ransaction Publishers. pg. @> 7ange, N. 3<>;<4. Perspective6 i&aging autis&. Nature, @?;3H@<<4, S;H-S;H. 7ahr, ". ". 3;??A4. /he evolution of &odern hu&an diversity6 a study of cranial variation 3 ol. ;K4. Ca&bridge *niversity Press. 7ee, (. (. 3<>;>4. #evie0 of intelligence and ho0 to get it6 2hy schools and cultures count, #E Nisbett, Norton, Ne0 5or-, N5 3<>>?4. ISBN6 ?HK>=?=>AG>G=. 7eigh, '., a Gong, c. 3<>>?4. Esti&ating cognitive gaps bet0een Indigenous and non Indigenous 'ustralians. Dducation economics, 1=3<4, <=?-<A;. 7enno), (. G. 3<>>;4. 'ristotlePs philosophy of biology6 studies in the origins of life science. Ca&bridge *niversity Press. p ;=K.

7aland, $. N., .dling-S&ee, (., a "yles, S. 3<>;>4. !o0 culture shaped the hu&an geno&e6 bringing genetics and the hu&an sciences together. Nature #evie0s Genetics, ;;3<4, ;=H-;@K. 7eroi, '. ". 3<>>G4. ' fa&ily tree in every gene. (ournal of genetics, K@3;4, =-A. 7evin, ". 3<>><a4. /he race concept6 a defense. Behavior and philosophy, <;-@<. 7evin, . 3<>><b4. 8#ace *nreal19. /he "an-ind Duarterly. pp. @;=-@;K. 7e0ens, /. 3<>;<4. Pheneticis& reconsidered. Biology a Philosophy, <H3<4, ;G?-;HH. 7e0is, G. (., a Bates, /. C. 3<>;>4. Genetic evidence for &ultiple biological &echanis&s underlying in-group favoritis&. Psychological science, <;3;;4, ;A<=-;A<K. 7e0ontin #. C. /he apportion&ent of hu&an diversity. In6 %ob,hans-y /, !echt "$, Steere 2C, editors. Evolutionary Biology A. Ne0 5or-6 'ppleton-Century-Crofts. ;?H<. p =K;S=?K. 7i, (. I., 'bsher, %. "., /ang, !., South0ic-, '. "., Casto, '. "., #a&achandran, S., ... a "yers, #. ". 3<>>K4. 2orld0ide hu&an relationships inferred fro& geno&e-0ide patterns of variation. science, $1,3GKAA4, ;;>>-;;>@. 7ieber&an, 7., !a&pton, #. E., 7ittlefield, '., a !allead, G. 3;??<4. #ace in biology and anthropology6 a study of college te)ts and professors. 7ieber&an, 7., $ir-, #. C., a Corcoran, ". 3<>>=4. /he decline of race in '&erican physical anthropology. 'nthropological #evie0, AA, =-<;. 7ieber&an, 7., $ir-, #. C., a 7ittlefield, '. 3<>>=4. Perishing Paradig&6 #aceF;?=;S ??. '&erican 'nthropologist, ;>G3;4, ;;>-;;=. 7ieber&an, 7. and #ice, p. ;??A. C#aces or Clines1 #ace or Clines1 "odule v<. General 'nthropology %ivision "odules in /eaching 'nthropology, '&erican 'nthropological 'ssociation, 'rlington, ', ;??A 7innaeus, C. 3;?A@4. Syste&a naturae ;H=G6 facsi&ile of the first edition 0ith an introduction and a first English translation of the 8.bservationes.9. Trans% +nd ed% *5M Dngel9>edeboer and H% Dngel "2ieuw&oop; /% de -raa!#. 7ong, (. C. 3<>>?4. *pdate to 7ong and $ittlesPsC !u&an Genetic %iversity and the None)istence of Biological #acesC3<>>=46 +i)ation on an Inde). !u&an biology, K;3G4, H??-K>=. 7ong, (. C., 7i, (., a !ealy, ". E. 3<>>?4. !u&an %N' se:uences6 &ore variation and less race. '&erican Journal of physical anthropology, ;=?3;4, <=-=@.

7ub-e, G. !., %olan, C. ., $elder&an, !., a "ellenbergh, G. (. 3<>>=4. .n the relationship bet0een sources of 0ithin-and bet0een-group differences and &easure&ent invariance in the co&&on factor &odel. Intelligence, $13A4, G@=-GAA. 7yell, Charles 3;K=>4, Principles of Geology ;, 7ondon6 (ohn "urray 7ynn, #. 3<>><4. S-in color and intelligence in 'frican '&ericans. 'opulation and Dnvironment, $3@4, =AG-=HG. 7ynn, #. 3<>>A4. Cace di!!erences in intelligence; +n evolutionary analysis. 2ashington Su&&it Publishers. 7ynn, #. 3<>>K4. #ace, I. D., a 2orld0ide, I. /he Global Bell Curve. 7ynn, #. 3<>;<4. IDs predict differences in the technological develop&ent of nations fro& ;>>> BC through <>>> '%. Intelligence, @>3G4, @=?-@@@. 7ynn, #., a anhanen, /. 3<>;<4. Intelligence6 ' unifying construct for the social sciences. *lster Institute for Social #esearch. 7ynn, #., a anhanen, /. 3<>;<4. National IDs6 ' revie0 of their educational, cognitive, econo&ic, political, de&ographic, sociological, epide&iological, geographic and cli&atic correlates. Intelligence, @>3<4, <<A-<=@. "agnuson, $. '., a 2aldfogel, (. 3<>>G4. Early childhood care and education6 Effects on ethnic and racial gaps in school readiness. /he future of children, ;G3;4, ;A?-;?A. "allet, (. 3<>>;4. Subspecies, se&ispecies, superspecies. Encyclopedia of biodiversity, G, G<=-G<A.

"alloy, (. 3<>>K4. (a&es 2atson tells the inconvenient truth6 +aces the conse:uences. *edical Hypotheses, =73A4, ;>K;-;>?;. "ara-eby et al., 3<>;@4. ' Syste& to 'uto&atically Classify and Na&e 'ny Individual Geno&e-Se:uenced .rganis& Independently of Current Biological Classification and No&enclature. P7oS .NE, <>;@B ? 3<46 eK?;@< %.I6 ;>.;=H;QJournal.pone.>>K?;@< "ar-s, (. 3;??@4. Blac-, 0hite, other. Natural !istory, ;>=3;<4, =<-=G. "artine,-Ba--er, ". E., Sell, S. $., S0anson, B. (., $elly, B. P., a /all&on, %. '. 3<>;=4. Co&bined Genetic and /ele&etry %ata #eveal !igh #ates of Gene +lo0, "igration, and 7ong-%istance %ispersal Potential in 'rctic #inged Seals 3Pusa hispida4. PloS one, K3;>4, eHH;<G.

"ayr, E. 3;?@<4. Syste&atics and the .rigin of Species6 +ro& the ie0point of a Ioologist 3No. ;=4. !arvard *niversity Press. "ayr, E. 3;?@H4. Ecological factors in speciation. Evolution, <A=-<KK. "ayr, E. 3;?A=4. 'ni&al species and evolution. 'ni&al species and their evolution. "ayr, E. 3;?AG4. Classification and phylogeny. '&erican Ioologist, G3;4, ;AG-;H@. "ayr, E. 3;?K<4. /he gro0th of biological thought6 diversity, evolution and inheritance. !arvard *niversity Press. "ayr, E. 3<>><4. /he biology of race and the concept of e:uality. %aedalus, ;=;3;4, K??@. "ayr, E., a 'shloc-, P. %. 3;?A?4. Principles of syste&atic ,oology. p. @=. "ayr, E., a 'shloc-, P. %. 3;??;4. Principles of syste&atic ,oology. "ayr, E., a Boc-, 2. (. 3<>><4. Classifications and other ordering syste&s. (ournal of Ioological Syste&atics and Evolutionary #esearch, @>3@4, ;A?-;?@. "cEvoy, B. P., 7ind, (. "., 2ang, E. /., "oy,is, #. $., isscher, P. "., van !olst Pelle-aan, S. "., a 2ilton, '. N. 3<>;>4. 2hole-geno&e genetic diversity in a sa&ple of 'ustralians 0ith deep 'boriginal ancestry. /he '&erican (ournal of !u&an Genetics, KH3<4, <?H-=>G. "eisenberg, G., a 2oodley, ". '. 3<>;=4. Global behavioral variation6 ' test of differential-_ iX $_QiX. 'ersonality and Individual Hi!!erences, NN3=4, <H=-<HK. "elnic-, %. (., a !oel,er, G. '. 3;??=4. 2hat is &t%N' good for in the study of pri&ate evolution1. Dvolutionary +nthropology; Issues, 2ews, and Ceviews, 3;4, <-;>. "eir&ans, P. G., a !edric-, P. 2. 3<>;;4. 'ssessing population structure6 +S/ and related &easures. *olecular Dcology Cesources, 113;4, G-;K. "erri0ether, %. '., Clar-, '. G., Ballinger, S. 2., Schurr, /. G., Soodyall, !., (en-ins, /., a 2allace, %. C. 3;??;4. /he structure of hu&an &itochondrial %N' variation. (ournal of "olecular Evolution, ==3A4, G@=-GGG. "iele, +. 3<>><4. Intelligence, race, and genetics6 Conversations 0ith 'rthur #. (ensen. 2estvie0 Press.

"ill, #., a Stein, 7. C. 3<>;<4. %isentangling s-in-color discri&ination fro& fa&ily bac-ground differences a&ong 'frican-'&ericans. "iller, G. +. 3<>;>4. ;= 're Pleiotropic "utations and !olocene Selective S0eeps the .nly Evolutionary-genetic Processes 7eft for E)plaining !eritable ariation in !u&an Psychological /raits1. The evolution o! personality and individual di!!erences, =HA. "odgil, S., a "odgil, C. 3Eds.4. 3<>;<4. Hans Dysenc&; consensus and controversy. #outledge. "ountain, (. 7., a #isch, N. 3<>>@4. 'ssessing genetic contributions to phenotypic differences a&ongPracialPandPethnicPgroups. Nature Genetics, =A, S@K-SG=. "olnar, S. 3;??K4. !u&an variation6 races, types, and ethnic groups. *pper Saddle #iver, N(6 Prentice !all. "orning, '. 3<>;;4. /he nature of race6 !o0 scientists thin- and teach about hu&an difference. *niversity of California Pr. "ra,e-, '. (., Chiao, (. 5., Bli,ins-y, $. %., 7un, (., a Gelfand, ". (. /he role of cultureSgene coevolution in &orality Judg&ent6 e)a&ining the interplay bet0een tightnessSlooseness and allelic variation of the serotonin transporter gene. Culture and Brain, ;-;K "^ller-2ille, S. Cabbage, /ulips, EthiopiansS8E)peri&ents9 in Early "odern !eredity. *ax 'lanc& Institute !or the History o! 5cience, H. Nei, "., a #oychoudhury, '. $. 3;??=4. Evolutionary relationships of hu&an populations on a global scale. "olecular biology and evolution, ;>3G4, ?<H-?@=. te NiJenhuis, (., de Pater, I. E., van Bloois, #., a GeutJes, 7. 7. 3<>>?4. /0o psycho&etric &etaanalyses and three e)ploratory &eta-analyses on g loadings and ID scores6 /he relation of giftedness, &ental retardation, alcohol and cocaine abuse, and depression 0ith general intelligence. <npublished manuscript, <niversity o! +msterdam, the 2etherlands. Nisbett, #. E., 'ronson, (., Blair, C., %ic-ens, 2., +lynn, (., !alpern, %. +., a /ur-hei&er, E. 3<>;<4. Intelligence6 ne0 findings and theoretical develop&ents. '&erican Psychologist, AH3<4, ;=>. Nishiya&a, /., $ishino, !., Su,u-i, S., 'ndo, #., Nii&ura, !., *e&ura, !., ... a /ana-a, !. 3<>;<4. %etailed 'nalysis of (apanese Population Substructure 0ith a +ocus on the South0est Islands of (apan. PloS one, H3@4, e=G>>>. .PBrien, S. (., a "ayr, E. 3;??;4. Bureaucratic &ischief6 recogni,ing endangered species and subspecies. Science32ashington4, <G;3@??K4, ;;KH-;;KK.

.liveira, (. %. %., Igarashi, ". 7. S. %. P., "achado, /. ". "., "iretti, ". "., +erro, (. '., a Contel, E. P. B. 3<>>H4. Structure and genetic relationships bet0een Bra,ilian naturali,ed and e)otic purebred goat do&estic goat 3Capra hircus4 breeds based on &icrosatellites. Genetics and "olecular Biology, =>3<4, =GA-=A=. .rey, B. %. '., a Par-, !. 3<>;<4. Nature, nurture, and ethnocentris& in the "innesota /0in Study. /0in #esearch and !u&an Genetics, ;G3>;4, H;-H=. .ssorio, P. N. 3<>>?4. #ace, genes, and intelligence. Padian, $. 3;???4. Charles %ar0inPs vie0s of classification in theory and practice. 5ystematic /iology, I63<4, =G<-=A@. Parry, 2. 2. /., a !ac-er, E. '. 3;??;4. 'ristotelian logic. S*N5 Press. Pearson, #. 3<>><4. /he debate on race6 ' proble& of se&antics rather than of biology. "an-ind :uarterly, @<3@4, @;?-@@>. Pe&berton, /. (., %eGiorgio, "., a #osenberg, N. '. 3<>;=4. Population structure in a co&prehensive geno&ic data set on hu&an &icrosatellite variation. -$; -enesQ -enomesQ -enetics, $3G4, K?;-?>H. Pen-e, 7. 3<>;>4. ? Bridging the Gap Bet0een "odern Evolutionary Psychology and the Study of Individual %ifferences. /he evolution of personality and individual differences, <@=. Pure,-7e,aun, '., Calafell, +., Seielstad, "., "ateu, E., Co&as, %., Bosch, E., a Bertranpetit, (. 3;??H4. Population genetics of 5-chro&oso&e short tande& repeats in hu&ans. Mournal o! molecular evolution, IN3=4, <AG-<H>. Per-ins, #. 3;??H4. ' Giant and So&e %0arves6 Niet,schePs *npublished "archen on the E)ception and the #ule. "arvels a /ales, ;;3;4, G. Pierce, (. 3<>;=4. Glasgo0Ps #ace 'ntirealis&6 E)peri&ental Philosophy and /hought E)peri&ents. (ournal of Social Philosophy, @@3<4, ;@A-;AK. Piffer, %. 3<>;=4. +actor 'nalysis of Population 'llele +re:uencies as a Si&ple, Novel "ethod of %etecting Signals of #ecent Polygenic Selection6 /he E)a&ple of Educational 'ttain&ent and ID. Interdisciplinary Bio Central, 3;4. Pigliucci, "., a $aplan, (. 3<>>=4. .n the concept of biological race and its applicability to hu&ans. Philosophy of Science, H>3G4, ;;A;-;;H<.

Pigliucci, ". 3<>;=4. 2hat are 0e to &a-e of the concept of race16 /houghts of a philosopherSscientist. Studies in !istory and Philosophy of Science Part C6 Studies in !istory and Philosophy of Biological and Bio&edical Sciences. Prayon, ., a Baten, (. 3<>;>4. Human capital, institutions, settler mortality, and economic growth in +!rica, +sia and the +mericas. *niversity of /uebingen 2or-ing Paper. Pr^fer, $., #aci&o, +., Patterson, N., (ay, +., San-arara&an, S., Sa0yer, S., ... a Pwwbo, S. 3<>;@4. /he co&plete geno&e se:uence of a Neanderthal fro& the 'ltai "ountains. 2ature, N7N3H@K;4, @=-@?. Prugnolle, +., "anica, '., a Ballou), +. 3<>>G4. Geography predicts neutral genetic diversity of hu&an populations. Current Biology, ;G3G4, #;G?-#;A>. de Dueiro,, $. 3<>>G4. %ifferent species proble&s and their resolution. BioEssays, <H3;<4, ;<A=-;<A?. Duintyn, C. B. 3<>;>4. /he E)istence .r Non-e)istence of #ace16 +orensic 'nthropology, Population 'd&i)ture, and the +uture of #acial Classification in the *S. /eneo Press. #a&ey, #. #., 7iu, !. P., Epps, C. 2., Carpenter, 7. "., a 2ehausen, (. %. 3<>>G4. Genetic relatedness of the PreblePs &eado0 Ju&ping &ouse 3Iapus hudsonius preblei4 to nearby subspecies of I. hudsonius as inferred fro& variation in cranial &orphology, &itochondrial %N' and &icrosatellite %N'6 i&plications for ta)ono&y and conservation. 'ni&al conservation, K3>=4, =<?-=@A. #e&sen (r, (. . 3<>;>4. Subspecies as a &eaningful ta)ono&ic ran- in avian classification. .rnithological "onographs, AH3;4, A<-HK. #elethford, (. !. 3;??@4. Cranio&etric variation a&ong &odern hu&an populations. '&erican (ournal of Physical 'nthropology, ?G3;4, G=-A<. #elethford, (. !. 3<>>?4. #ace and global patterns of phenotypic variation. '&erican Journal of physical anthropology, ;=?3;4, ;A-<<. #es-in, B. 3<>;<4. /he #ace %iscri&ination Syste&. 'nnual #evie0 of Sociology, =K, ;H-=G. #inder&ann, !., 2oodley, ". '., a Stratford, (. 3<>;<4. !aplogroups as evolutionary &ar-ers of cognitive ability. Intelligence, @>3@4, =A<-=HG. #inder&ann, Coyle, and Bec-er, ISI# ;=, ;@-cII ;=, E)pert Survey. %iscussed in6 ( /ho&pson. 3<>;=, %ece&ber ;@4. ISI# 2hat do intelligence researchers really thin-

about intelligence1 #etrieved fro& http6QQdrJa&estho&pson.blogspot.co&Q<>;=Q;<Qisir0hat-do-intelligence-researchers.ht&l #inder&ann 3<>;@, (anuary4. /he Psychology 'pproach to "acroecono&ics. /alpresented at the '&erican Econo&ic 'ssociation, <>;@ 'E' "eeting. #odrigue,-'rana, '. 3<>;>4. Intelligence and the 2ealth of Nations6 Genetics "atter but there is Still "uch #oo& to #educe Ine:ualities preli&inary. In %EGI/ Conference #osenberg, N. '., Pritchard, (. $., 2eber, (. 7., Cann, !. "., $idd, $. $., Ihivotovs-y, 7. '., a +eld&an, ". 2. 3<>><4. Genetic structure of hu&an populations. 5cience, ,63GA><4, <=K;-<=KG. #osenberg, N. '., "ahaJan, S., #a&achandran, S., Ihao, C., Pritchard, (. $., a +eld&an, ". 2. 3<>>G4. Clines, clusters, and the effect of study design on the inference of hu&an population structure. P7oS genetics, ;3A4, eH>. #osenberg, N. '. 3<>;;4. ' population-genetic perspective on the si&ilarities and differences a&ong 0orld0ide hu&an populations. !u&an biology, K=3A4, AG?. #oth, P. 7., Bob-o, P., a Buster, ". '. 3<>;=4. Situational Judg&ent tests6 /he influence and i&portance of applicant status and targeted constructs on esti&ates of Blac-S2hite subgroup differences. Mournal o! Occupational and Organizational 'sychology, 6?3=4, =?@-@>?. #oth, /i&othy C., 7ara %. 7a%age, and ladi&ir . Pravosudov. C7earning capabilities enhanced in harsh environ&ents6 a co&&on garden approach.C 'roceedings o! the Coyal 5ociety /; /iological 5ciences <HH.;A?H 3<>;>46 =;KH-=;?= #oth, I. I., Gallagher, C. "., 7a%age, 7. %., a Pravosudov, . . 3<>;<4. ariation in brain regions associated 0ith fear and learning in contrasting cli&ates. /rain, behavior and evolution, =,3=4, ;K;-;?>. #oth, /. C., Chevalier, %. "., 7a%age, 7. %., a Pravosudov, . . 3<>;=4. ariation in hippoca&pal glial cell nu&bers in foodcaching birds fro& different cli&ates. Hevelopmental neurobiology, =$3A4, @K>-@KG. -othwell' N! $%./0' 1une /0&! 2isionary economist shed light on the plight of 3borigines! ,he 3ustralian #o0e, %. C., esterdal, 2. (., a #odgers, (. 7. 3;??K4. !errnsteinPs syllogis&6 Genetic and shared environ&ental influences on ID, education, and inco&e. Intelligence, <A3@4, @>G-@<=.

#ushton, (. P., a (ensen, '. #. 3<>>G4. /hirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. 'sychology, public policy, and law, 113<4, <=G. #yder, .. '. 3;?KA4. Species conservation and syste&atics6 the dile&&a of subspecies. Trends in Dcology O Dvolution, 13;4, ?-;>. Sailer, S. 3;??K4. "a-ing Sense of the Concept of #ace6 ' #ace Is 'n E)tre&ely E)tended +a&ily. #etrieved Nove&ber <>, <>;=, fro& http6QQ000.isteve.co&Q&a-ingsense.ht& Salter, +. 3<>>=4. .n genetic interests. +a&ily, Ethny and !u&anity in an 'ge of "ass "igration. Peter 7ang, +ran-furt a& "ain ua. Salter, +. 3<>;=4. C/he Evolutionary %eficit in "ainstrea& Political /heory of 2elfareC. In Salter, +. 3Ed.4. 3<>;=4 2elfare, Ethnicity and 'ltruis&6 Ne0 %ata and Evolutionary /heory. #outledge. Sarich, ., a "iele, +. 3<>>@4. #ace6 /he reality of hu&an differences. pg. ;A<-;A=. Schilling, C. "., 2alsh, '., a 5un, I. 3<>;;4. '%!% and cri&inality6 ' pri&er on the genetic, neurobiological, evolutionary, and treat&ent literature for cri&inologists. (ournal of Cri&inal (ustice, =?3;4, =-;;. Sch&itt, %. P. 3<>;;4. Psychological adaptation and hu&an fertility patterns6 So&e evidence of hu&an &ating strategies as evo-ed se)ual culture. In Biosocial +oundations of +a&ily Processes 3pp. ;A;-;H>4. Springer Ne0 5or-. Seielstad, ". /., "inch, E., a Cavalli-Sfor,a, 7. 7. 3;??K4. Genetic evidence for a higher fe&ale &igration rate in hu&ans. Nature genetics, <>3=4, <HK-<K>. Sesardic, N. 3;??=4. !eritability and causality. Philosophy of Science, =?A-@;K. Sesardic, N. 3<>;>4. #ace6 a social destruction of a biological concept. Biology a Philosophy, <G3<4, ;@=-;A<. Sethura&an, '. 3<>;=4. .n inferring and interpreting genetic population structureapplications to conservation, and the esti&ation of pair0ise genetic relatedness 3%octoral dissertation, Io0a State *niversity4. Shea, B. /., 7eigh, S. #., a Groves, C. P. ariation in Chirnpan,ees. Shuey, 'udrey ". 3;?AA4. /he /esting of Negro Intelligence 3<nd ed.4. Ne0 5or-6 Social Science Press. Si&pson, G. G. 3;?A;4. 'rinciples o! animal taxonomy 3 ol. <>4. Colu&bia *niversity Press.

Sloan, P. #. 3;?H?4. Buffon, Ger&an biology, and the historical interpretation of biological species. The /ritish :ournal !or the history o! science, 1 3><4, ;>?-;G=. 5)ith0 ,. :BC=F0 (ebruar" =C;. The Enlighten)entDs ORaceD 'roble)0 and /urs. New Mor7 Ti)es. S&it, (. 3<>;;4. 're differences in ID scores also differences in general intelligence1. S&ith, !. "., Chis,ar, %., a "ontanucci, #. #. 3;??H4. Subspecies and classification. !erpetological #evie0, <K3;4, ;=-;H. Snyder&an, "., a #oth&an, S. 3;?KH4. Survey of e)pert opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing. +merican 'sychologist, I 3<4, ;=H. Sober, E. 3;?K>4. Evolution, population thin-ing, and essentialis&. 'hilosophy o! 5cience, =G>-=K=. Spencer, D. 3<>;;, .ctober4. !o0 to Be a Biological #acial #ealist. /al- presented at the Philosophy Collo:uiu& Series, California State *niversity. Spencer, D. 3<>;<4. 2hat Ubiological racial realis&Eshould &ean. Philosophical studies, ;G?3<4, ;K;-<>@ Sta&os, %. N. 3<>>G4. Pre-%ar0inian /a)ono&y and Essentialis&S' #eply to "ary2insor. Biology and Philosophy, <>3;4, H?-?A. Stone-ing, "., (orde, 7. B., Bhatia, $., a 2ilson, '. C. 3;??>4. Geographic variation in hu&an &itochondrial %N' fro& Papua Ne0 Guinea. Genetics, ;<@3=4, H;H-H==. Strauss, '., a !ubbe, ". 3<>;>4. Cranio&etric si&ilarities 0ithin and bet0een hu&an populations in co&parison 0ith neutral genetic data. !u&an biology, K<3=4, =;G-==>. Str-alJ, G. 3<>>A4. 'rtificial classification and the study of hu&an variation. Civista di biologia, ,,3;4, ;@. Str-alJ, G., #a&sey, S., a 2il-inson, '. /. 3<>>K4. 'nato&istsP attitudes to0ards the concept of race. South 'frican "edical (ournal, ?@3<4, ?>. S0ain, C. ". 3<>><4. /he ne0 0hite nationalis& in '&erica6 Its challenge to integration. Ca&bridge *niversity Press. /al, .. 3<>>?4. +ro& heritability to probability. Biology a Philosophy, <@3;4, K;-;>G. /al, .. 3<>;<4. /0o co&ple&entary perspectives on inter-individual genetic distance. Biosyste&s.

/aylor, '. B., a Golds&ith, ". 7. 3Eds.4. 3<>>=4. Gorilla biology6 a &ultidisciplinary perspective 3 ol. =G4. Ca&bridge *niversity Press. /e&pler, %. I. 3<>>K4. Correlational and factor analytic support for #ushtonEs differential_ iX $_QiX life history theory. Personality and Individual %ifferences, @G3A4, @@>-@@@. /e&pler, %. I., a 'ri-a0a, !. 3<>>A4. /e&perature, s-in color, per capita inco&e, and ID6 'n international perspective. Intelligence, =@3<4, ;<;-;=?. /e&pleton, '. #. 3;??K4. !u&an races6 a genetic and evolutionary perspective. '&erican 'nthropologist, ;>>3=4, A=<-AG>. /e&pleton, '. #. 3<>;=4. Biological races in hu&ans. Studies in !istory and Philosophy of Science Part C6 Studies in !istory and Philosophy of Biological and Bio&edical Sciences. /ian, C., $osoy, #., Nassir, #., 7ee, '., illoslada, P., $lares-og, 7., ... a Seldin, ". +. 3<>>?4. European population genetic substructure6 further definition of ancestry infor&ative &ar-ers for distinguishing a&ong diverse European ethnic groups. *olecular *edicine, 1N3;;-;<4, =H;. /r,as-o0s-i, "., !arlaar, N., 'rden, #., $rapohl, E., #i&feld, $., "c"illan, '., ... a Plo&in, #. 3<>;@4. Genetic influence on fa&ily socioecono&ic status and childrenPs intelligence. Intelligence, @<, K=-KK. /urchin, ". C., Chiang, C. 2., Pal&er, C. %., San-arara&an, S., #eich, %., a !irschhorn, (. N. 3<>;<4. Evidence of 0idespread selection on standing variation in Europe at height-associated SNPs. 2ature genetics, II3?4, ;>;G-;>;?. *nesco 3;?AG4. Proposals on the Biological 'spects of #ace. #ace Class (anuary ;?AG vol. A no. = <@=-<@H anhanen, /. 3<>>?4. /he li&its of de&ocrati,ation6 Cli&ate, intelligence, and resource distribution. 2ashington Su&&it Publishers. isscher, P. "., "edland, S. E., +erreira, ". '., "orley, $. I., Ihu, G., Cornes, B. $., ... a "artin, N. G. 3<>>A4. 'ssu&ption-free esti&ation of heritability fro& geno&e-0ide identity-by-descent sharing bet0een full siblings. P7oS genetics, <3=4, e@;. ogel, +. 3;??H4. !u&an genetics6 proble&s and approaches 3 ol. KHK4. Springer. pg. A;>.

2alsh, %. 3<>>A4. Evolutionary essentialis&. /he British Journal for the philosophy of science, GH3<4, @<G-@@K. 2ang, C. C., (in, 7., a 7i, !. 3<>;=4. Global patterns of se)-biased &igrations in hu&ans. arciv preprint arciv6;=;>.HKK=. 2ay, B. "., a 7ieber&an, ". %. 3<>;>4. Is there a genetic contribution to cultural differences1 Collectivis&, individualis& and genetic &ar-ers of social sensitivity. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, G3<-=4, <>=-<;;. 2eber, C., (ohnson, "., a 'rceneau), $. 3<>;;4. Genetics, Personality, and Group Identity. S.CI'7 SCIENCE D*'#/E#75, ?<3G4. 2eiss, $. "., a +ullerton, S. ". 3<>>G4. #acing around, getting no0here. Evolutionary 'nthropology6 Issues, Ne0s, and #evie0s, ;@3G4, ;AG-;A?. 2i-ins, (.S. 3<>;;, <<, 'pril4. Is Brian Blessed a &on-ey or an ape1 #etrived fro&6 http6QQevolvingthoughts.netQtagQnatural-classificationQ 2ilbur et al. 3;??K4. Is it a %e&e, a Stoc- .r a Subspecies16 /hese and .ther %efinitions. 'las-a %epart&ent of +ish and Ga&e, Co&&ercial +isheries "anage&ent and %evelop&ent %ivision, ;??K. 2ilder, (. '., $ingan, S. B., "obasher, I., Pil-ington, ". "., a !a&&er, ". +. 3<>>@4. Global patterns of hu&an &itochondrial %N' and 5-chro&oso&e structure are not influenced by higher &igration rates of fe&ales versus &ales. Nature genetics, =A3;>4, ;;<<-;;<G. 2ilson, E. .., a Bro0n, 2. 7. 3;?G=4. /he subspecies concept and its ta)ono&ic application. Syste&atic Ioology, <3=4, ?H-;;;. 2itherspoon, %. (., 2ooding, S., #ogers, '. #., "archani, E. E., 2at-ins, 2. S., Bat,er, ". '., a (orde, 7. B. 3<>>H4. Genetic si&ilarities 0ithin and bet0een hu&an populations. Genetics, ;HA3;4, =G;-=G?. 2olpoff, ". !. 3<>>?4. !o0 Neandertals infor& hu&an variation. +merican :ournal o! physical anthropology, 1$,3;4, ?;-;><. +oodel"0 2.A. :BCC>;. Is 6o)o sa iens ol"t" ic1 6u)an taxono)ic di.ersit" and its i) lications.

Med Hypotheses. BC=C ,an8HG:=;:=>J-BC=.

2right, S. 3;?HK4. ol. @6 ariability 0ithin and a&ong natural populations. Chicago Netc.O6 *niversity of Chicago Press.

2u, '. %., 7i, I., a Iu&bo, B. %. 3<>>H4. %ecoding the &eaning of factorial invariance and updating the practice of &ulti-group confir&atory factor analysis6 ' de&onstration 0ith /I"SS data. 'ractical +ssessment, Cesearch and Dvaluation, 1 3=4, ;-<A. 2u, %. %., a Ihang, 5. P. 3<>;;4. %ifferent level of population differentiation a&ong hu&an genes. B"C evolutionary biology, ;;3;4, ;A. cu, S., !uang, 2., Dian, (., a (in, 7. 3<>>K4. 'nalysis of geno&ic ad&i)ture in *yghur and its i&plication in &apping strategy. /he '&erican (ournal of !u&an Genetics, K<3@4, KK=-K?@. Ihang, 5. 3<>>K4. /ree-guided Bayesian inference of population structures. Bioinfor&atics, <@3H4, ?AG-?H;. Ihang, 5. %., a /ier, B. 3<>>?4. Population stratification, not genotype error, causes so&e SNPs to depart fro& !ardy-2einberg E:uilibriu&. In Proc. 'ssoc. 'dv&t. 'ni&. Breed. Genet 3 ol. ;K, pp. <@=-<@A4.