Why are Neanderthals not a race?

[Calpalned]

2) If Neanderthals and Early homo sapiens (Cro-

Magnon) could interbreed why are neanderthals considered a different

(sub)species and not simply a race?

 

[Simon Bridge]

The answer is in your question:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC532398/
... what have you done to try to answer your questions?

 

[Czcibor]

The answer is in your question:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC532398/
... what have you done to try to answer your questions?

Actually I think that you quoted a bit outdated article, which does not include recent studies concerning mixing up between homo sapiens and Neanderthals:

http://www.livescience.com/42933-humans-carry-20-percent-neanderthal-genes.html

Which I consider as highly disrespectful for our Neanderthal ancestors :D

 

[Calpalned]

The answer is in your question:

Looking at the first post, I don't see where the answer to my question is. I stated that scientists proved that neanderthals and humans mated successfully. However, modern people of different races can mate successfully. Why then, are the neanderthals never classified as a race (in other words, as a member of our species - homo sapiens sapiens).

 

[Pythagorean]

Race is not species.

 

[Calpalned]

Race is not species.

That fact is true. Why are neanderthals called neanderthals and not homo sapiens sapiens?

 

[Pythagorean]

Because they "speciated" from humans. Or at least were in the process of it. Speciation isn't a binary condition.

You might say that before speciation, a geographically isolated population is a race. Botanists use the word "variety" instead of race, I'm not sure what zoologists use to describe different varietes of, say, bear. I think race is exclusively a human term, but it appears analogous to "variety" in botany

I assume you could say that variarion is the first step to speciation, but I'm not an expert.

 

[Czcibor]

That fact is true. Why are neanderthals called neanderthals and not homo sapiens sapiens?

Because even though it was possible to mate, it wasn't happening often during millennia. So counted as "not mate under normal conditions". (lions and tigers could also have fertile offspring and it sometimes happens in circus, but we count them as separate species)

Yes, distinction is somewhat arbitrary.

 

[Calpalned]

Because even though it was possible to mate, it wasn't happening often during millennia. So counted as "not mate under normal conditions". (lions and tigers could also have fertile offspring and it sometimes happens in circus, but we count them as separate species)

Yes, distinction is somewhat arbitrary.

Thank you so much. I use to think that the production of fertile offspring automatically means that the two animals belong to the same species, but I forgot about ligers and the fact of whether or not such mating occurs in nature or only in captivity.