Are races of humans different subspecies?

[slaughterhouse]

Well, you read the title. Are they or are they not?

---

There can be two conflicting arguments that can be made -

1. The breed hypothesis
2. The subspecies hypothesis

For starters we have previously distinguished animals as different subspecies for lesser reasons. Skull morphology has been primarily used to distinguish subspecies of felines for example, that being the root cause of distinguishing the 8 or so subspecies of tigers -

Relationships among the five traditionally recognized

mainland subspecies now need to be discussed. As

indicated by results of bivariate, multivariate analysis,

mainland tigers generally show a relatively large overall

variation in skull morphology and greater overlap

among samples. Yet, there are still clear morphological

separations among subspecies

Craniometric variation in the tiger (Panthera tigris):

Implications for patterns of diversity, taxonomy and conservation



And we can observe great differences even in skulls of humans - 





The tigers clearly show less morphologicaly distinctions than humans, even the Island tigers and continental ones aren't as varied if you take the two subspecies hypothesis.

However contrastingly, we have not distinguished domestic dogs for being so varied as different subspecies and have kept them all under the neat blanket of C. l. familiaris.



The EBT skull isn't the best, but you get the point.

---

So, I'm interested, what take do you guys believe to be more acurate?

[s]

It's sad that this discussion is ostracized from mainstream academia simply due to not agreeing with modern systemic liberalism.

[s]

---

IMO this is a fairly good map of Human biodiversity/sub-species. But i would separate non-Indo-European caucasoids like Arabs and North Africans from Indo-European caucasoids

[s]

Good human biodiversity genetic cluster graph.