I disagree. What you posted is fine and that is what the scientific community uses, but it has a whole bunch of problems, not the least of which is that I proposed a labeling system that labels africans, europeans, asians, etc as SPECIES and yours does not because it is designed for scientific testing requirements that have to fit into political frameworks. Scientists that call different races species get fired. There are a few things to consider in my post. 1) My proposed labeling system was designed by me, for me. It is extremely useful in all sorts of ways, including past explanatory power and future predictive power. The scientific labeling system does not have future predictive power because it claims that africans and europeans are not a separate species but a race. Race has been DELIBERATELY poisoned and overloaded with useless meaning in our time. In the past it may have been something closer to species, today race just means its just the same person with a tan. To you and me, we might be able to see past the label, but the label is still an overloaded term and deliberately misleading. With my labeling system I just need to know at which layer of speciation a particular person is at and I know everything I need about their past and how they will behave in the future. It is particularly useful when hiring people. Albeit not perfect in any sense of the matter. 2) I posted my labeling system not as a recommendation that you change your perspective or you use it. Whatever works for you. I shared my labeling system and my rationale around it. It is my claim that the labeling system is neither arbitrary nor unscientific. It's literally a description of the speciation process and only provided for your consideration. If you don't find it useful, okay. I don't find your labels useful, you don't find mine useful, that is fine. 3) My proposition is that my labeling system, repeated now for the third time, solves a bunch of problems including: * Removes us from the political context imposed on the scientific labeling frame. * Removes us from the cognitive context imposed by the use of overloaded language like race and ethnicity, which is completely meaningless. * It extends the labeling system to actual points at which speciation tends to fork. The scientific speciation graph is not useful to us because it really deals with specation only at the skeletal level. Scientists can only measure bones to distinguish species (and bodies for species alive today) and they simply stop at speciation and throw everything into a buck of "I cannot measure it therefore it is meaningless and probably mostly the same". We simply step out of that and look at speciation down to the individual because all new species must / can only start from a single individual. Now, sure, the levels of granularity are proposed by me for my purposes, my thinking is that you guys might want to give it a think and see if additional levels of granularity make sense. I proposed adding genetic clumping studies to help the filtering process and provided africa as an example where we would find a ton of new species of humans simply because of the huge genetic varioation on that continent and the huge amount of genetic clumping that is greater than anywhere else on the planet. And so on. In other words, if I take your scientific graph and I try to use it for a hiring process or a risk mitigation process in resolving a dispute it gives me really nothing to work from. Your graph basically says we are all one species and if i need to know how to hire or how to resolve a dispute, i have to pull out a giant (and always changing) book of cultural norms and try to figure out what each group believes in some arbitrary way. If I take my labeling system, if I hire or need to resolve a conflict, I just need to know where a person comes from and I can automatically know that a black person will exhibit dominance behaviours, an asian will be submissive but resentful underneath, a european will be highly compliant but rebellious and so on. The distinctions get more fuzzy at the lower levels of granularity, but if I were to apply genetic clumping studies to the speciation granularity I could easily start to simply discriminate against italians, spanish and portugese because, frankly, they are the children of invaders (another species) and therefore their own species and not white. If the scientific labeling method works for you, okay fine. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise.