I think you’re one level too high on the scale. As I understand it, “species” is something like “lion” or “tiger,” and then “subspecies” would be distinctions within those groups. One of the notable things here is that for interspecies breeding, it works once—liger, mule, etc.—but that offspring usually isn’t fertile. Since the offspring of any of those four groups of humans you identified probably would be fertile, I assume they must be more closely related than entirely different species.
You can literally tell the difference between mongoloid, negroid, and caucusoid skulls once you've been taught, just like you can tell a man from a man based on bones. The only reason we stopped using it was because after WW2 and eugenics it became "wacist" to even acknowledge biological race instead of "social race."
White is a species. There's about 4 distinct species of humans:
Everything else is a hybrid and/or subspecies more-or-less.
I think you’re one level too high on the scale. As I understand it, “species” is something like “lion” or “tiger,” and then “subspecies” would be distinctions within those groups. One of the notable things here is that for interspecies breeding, it works once—liger, mule, etc.—but that offspring usually isn’t fertile. Since the offspring of any of those four groups of humans you identified probably would be fertile, I assume they must be more closely related than entirely different species.
You can literally tell the difference between mongoloid, negroid, and caucusoid skulls once you've been taught, just like you can tell a man from a man based on bones. The only reason we stopped using it was because after WW2 and eugenics it became "wacist" to even acknowledge biological race instead of "social race."
Source?