Ltdanicecream, black and white men, and any other human "race" are so closely related it´s ridiculous to actually have a "race" subdivision. In taxonomy race is synonim of subspecies. But the genetic distance between any given human is too small to consider any subspecies subclassification, there´s just one. We are all Homo sapiens sapiens.
The whole race thing comes from a theory that some anthropologist (can´t remember who) with some dangerously racist ideas, found extremely convinient. It´s, all in all, a cultural thing. We have a mental classification of ethnicities, and for us, the differences are extremely obvious, but it has little or no genetic basis. There is more genetic variation between african inhabitants than between them and anyone else. Think of it more as in terms of "human morphs", pretty much like in axolotls xDD
Human taxonomy has been extremely influenced by our own ego as the "supreme species" and in an internal level, by pure, bloody minded racism. There are many taxonomic mistakes that are recognized worldwide simply because it´s convinient. Human races are one of those, and another great example is the fact that humans and chimpanzees and bonobos should be placed in the same genus (either Pan or Homo, who cares, it just doesn´t happen because people don´t want to be the same genus as a "monkey").
Anyway, there is a much bigger genetic distance between, say Notophthalmus viridescens viridescens and N.viridescens piaropicola, than there is between any humans.
As for Lissotriton and Triturus, they were included, with Ichthyosaura, under the genus Triturus. Bare in mind, however, that Triturus, at some points in the history of biology, included pretty much all newts (yes, even Cynops). It was a mess...and with the introduction of genetic analysis, it just fell apart...
Today´s clasification makes SOOOOO much more sense xD
Specific and subspecific classifications are important. I personally think it´s actually quite dangerous to ignore these differences and consider a large number of populations the same thing. Conservation whise it´s tricky.
Yanusz, i was blown away by the differences between C.pyrrhogaster and C.orientalis when i got my group. Current taxonomical theories are placing C.ensicauda and C.pyrrhogaster together (they´ll probably keep the name Cynops). The other Cynops have been proposed to be changed to the genus Hypselotriton.
Obviously there is MUCH more than just size differences to back this up. I wonder if and when this taxonomical change will be introduced.
PS: The traditional definition of "species" certainly dictated that if two animals can create fertile descendance, they have to be the same species. Current knowledge on hybridism, has forced this notion of species to be changed. There are fertile hybrids not just from different species, but from different genera!
PS2: Sorry for the speech, i hear a word about taxonomy and go mental xD
