Is it possible to have a species that is global to not have a sub-species?
What a boring question
What an interesting question
>>7982123
Sub-species is a meme anyway, it doesnt mean anything specific
>>7982123
My guess is that it is possible but unstable.
It should be possible because there are certainly species that could spread to all corners of the earth (especially by traveling with humans, which among other things causes plagues of all kinds of animals in places where they don't belong, like we've seen in australia)
I think it'd be unstable because unless there is constant cross-breeding between regions the species will diverge as all groups evolve to fit their relative environments.
Whether such a species exists at this time I wouldn't know, I guess there may be certain dogs spread around the earth without a subspecies, but they would themselves be a subspecies, and of course wouldn't have gotten there were it not for humans.
Now that I think of it, the breeding of dogs that humans do could actually prevent subspecies from evolving because of the constant mixing and the prevention of letting natural selection do its job.
In any case I don't think this could've been studied because it's a very recent phenomenon that humans have such an influence of these kinds of things.
>>7982123
This picture made me feel happy after a long day of being sad. Thanks, OP ;)
>>7982123
Yes if the population of that species is always 1 or 2 depending on if it reproduces asexually or not.
No matter what definition of sub-species you use, there will only be one species of that animal.
Also no other animals exist.
>>7982123
If they could maintain gene flow to all geopgraphical locations then sure
>>7982123
Depends on migration patterns. Think whales, bird species, butterflies and other insects, and things that surround coral reefs.
Wait, I think I know the answer to this one.. yeah, here it is:
>>>/pol/
huh, that just fell out of my pocket I guess. Ah well I'll just leave it here.
>>7982123
durr how about humans you fucking retard??
>>7983585
I think different Human populations fit the definition of what a Subspecies is,
Subspecies doesn't have a definite meaning.
/thread
>>7983585
Humans are not a species. We are not animals.
>>7983703
not if you are Mediterranean, Slavic or sand niggery ;)
>>7985361
Which is interestingly in most everyone's genetic history
>>7985379
I got all 3 plus angel saxon in me. go figure.
and we think we have come a long way.
The irony is that it appears humans are our pets slaves, not the other way around.
Their use in agriculture, pest control, warfare etc is mostly one of companionship rather than functionality because by ourselves humans are better at all those things than pets ever could be.
