SPECIES + ADVANTAGES

SPECIES

While other criteria have been reasonably considered, superficially relatable species and sub-species can be reliably defined and distinguished according to their degree of reproductive isolation. If groups cannot mate to produce offspring, they can be said to be reproductively isolated and to belong to distinct species. However, closely related species, which may often be said to be differing subspecies of a species, can often be mated to produce hybrid offspring. Such offspring may expectedly be abnormal in some way. The abnormality may or may not affect vigor, may or may not affect fertility and may include a characteristically enhanced ability.

It has been repeatedly and popularly asserted that all humans belong to the same species, but there may be more than science involved in this consensus. It would seem possible that two or more human species could co-exist on the planet, and the distinction be unrecognized, especially if all are happy with the singular assumption and there is no attempt to establish anything to the contrary. I certainly do not wish my suggestions for inquiry to provide any additional basis for separatist movements among the peoples of our earth, but I am obsessively and incurably inquisitive and seldom hesitate to open a potential Pandora's Box, especially since more than a few are standing by to slam it shut again.

The ability to derive information from DNA evidence has increased exponentially since its discovery and the mapping of the human genome. There are those who offer to supply a client's ancestral history for a fee. However, DNA comparisons are unlikely to easily or undeniably provide the basis for any degree of reproductive isolation without purposeful and careful searching and analysis. Corroboration of any promising evidence by in-vitro experiments would likely be disallowed in most countries.

We have been anthropologically amazed to find there is such a small percentage of DNA difference between distantly related species. Think of how much we share with a primate such as the Chimpanzee where the Innate physical and mental differences are great and readily recognizable. Without relying on promising evidential Instances of less obvious yet still considerable difference, like that exhibited by the Bambuti of the lturl Forest or the other Pygmy peoples, it seems that humans can possess a subtle circumstance of species differentiation, of which they would be unaware, especially when any overt manifestations are likely to be hidden by their individual adaptabilities and especially when the possibility is never brought to their attention.

If undertaken, there should be an anticipation of unexpected results in this type of inquiry. Hard science will often refute as well as sustain prior considerations. Appearances which now seem to contraindicate an existing species consanguinity may be proved misleading, especially if a single species should be found to embrace several widely recognized racial and ethnic definitions. This could quite possibly be the case and be the result of ancient migratory separations that affected environment and/or afforded a separate physiological and social evolution for an extended period. Modifications in appearance and an acquired or independently developed alteration of ethnicity could make people of the same species eventually seem foreign to each other. However, since those of the same species might most often subconsciously sense a commonality in the search for a harmonious mate, when consciously absent, globalization could allow for a continuation of species integrity that includes more mixing of the type that often evokes attention.

While many viable hybrids may be produced by crossbreeding of closely related species, otherwise unexplainable childless marriages may result from sex-cell incompatibility that accompanies the union of less closely related species. Sterile yet vigorous hybrid offspring, exemplified by the Mule, could be similarly produced by humans as well as offspring with shortened life expectancies and other less desirable characteristics, when there are borderline sex-cell compatibilities.

We often wonder what happened to the descendants of the several branches of early man. The specimens that provide our scant fossil record indicate that there were notable group differences, much too great to be explained by variance, even abnormal variance within a species, and were remnants that commanded a species distinction. Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon and more recently discovered identified additions, have made this acceptably clear.

While the selective eliminations of evolution have erased many precursor varieties and have thereby made variance of the presently remaining peoples less diverse, there may still be recognizable vestiges of species distinction that will help us to better determine our origins and increase the possibility of linkage to fossil evidence as it exists and may continue to be discovered. I strongly suspect that relatively dispassionate researchers would be more apt to consider looking for these Interesting historical traces, if they could be reasonably assured that their efforts to find evidence, as well as any evidence that they find, could be viewed as dispassionately by others and especially by those in authoritarian positions.

Lawrence Edward Bodkin, Sr.

ADVANTAGES

Among my more curious personal observations are two less than obvious characteristics that we still possess, that may have greatly aided survival in primitive times.

The first could be considered a subtle, nearly exclusive human characteristic and one that appears to be generally unrecognized and unappreciated, if not altogether unnoticed.

I often act as my own lab rat and, in this instance, you can join me in this respect without undue risk. Prepare a cup of coffee or tea that is at the temperature level that you considered hot, yet pleasantly tolerable in the mouth and down the throat. Now put a finger in the liquid. In all that I have encountered, me included, the same temperature is now found to be unendurable. There Is a considerable difference between the temperatures we prefer in mouth contact with food and drink and what we want on other parts of the body. The hands, which convey things to our mouths, seem to have escaped the necessity of this adaptation to higher temperature, since they can do this indirectly by using implements.

A logical speculation is that any difference in this direction of temperature toleration became a distinct advantage and began to increase as a factor in our genetic endowment in the period following our discovery of fire and that it could be used to make tough meat easier to chew and to permit inclusion of otherwise indigestible vegetables in our diet. Long before the considerate custom of manners affected our eating habits, there was likely to be much snatching and grabbing (or spearing with sharp sticks), of food being cooked around the campfire. Those who could eat while it was still hot were likely to get the greater share. Except when there was a surplus supply, those who waited for it to cool would often get scraps or nothing at all. Soon after we began to eat cooked food, we learned to prefer all aspects of it in taste, texture and temperature. Freshly cooked foods became the standard. While we still eat raw fruits and vegetables, out of a recognition of their nutritive value, we still have an instinctive resistance to many of them, a reaction primarily displayed by children but by many adults as well.

At the beginning I said, "nearly exclusive human characteristic". The constant canine companionship of humans has been established for so long that I suspect that some dogs may share this characteristic appreciation of the hot food they may have shared with their masters. Again, those able to tolerate higher temperatures could eat what others were afraid to touch.

The second characteristic is also related to eating but is one that is not so universally shared by humans. However, a substantial number of them do have it in common with other creatures. This includes the author, who was once again, at least initially and most conveniently, his own lab rat.

Many of us suffer from an outsized appetite and the strong urge to eat to capacity. However, this can be accompanied by the ability to skip meals with no discomfort, with no debilitating effect of lowered blood sugar level, not even with an appreciable sense of hunger. Several meals in succession can be easily ignored, most particularly if the subject is occupied and not exposed to sights and smells of food and sights of others eating it. However, once the subject starts to eat, a voracious appetite is activated that is difficult to satiate. I have been medically advised that skipping meals may be detrimental, but this is unlikely to be practiced. Subjects possessing this characteristic love eating and will seldom refuse a suggested meal, even if not particularly hungry.

In another a logical speculation, it is thought that this characteristic served the early hunter/gatherer quite well when food was not in regular supply. The subject could remain fully functional during long periods of deprivation and be able to automatically subsist on internal reserves more readily than most, until a source of food was found. Extended storage of food in an external manner was not yet possible. Once another source of food was found, the ability to assimilate large quantities of food in a brief time permitted rapid replenishment of the depleted reserves, while the supply lasted. Of course, when curing, canning and cooling made external storage of food possible, and food was seldom in short supply, the continued presence of this once valuable survival aid has led individuals to accumulate excessive and detrimental reserves. Where we tend to keep these reserves on our bodies is undeniably genetic, but how large they can become is only partially the result of genetic endowment. The troublesome urging to overeat can exist for many reasons that are unrelated to the ability to comfortably miss meals.

Lawrence Edward Bodkin, Sr.

A NEW KIND OF FIRE

Some time after cooking became a standard treatment for food and before the advent of refrigeration, progress in food preservation was made when mankind discovered that the decaying effects of ever present bacteria could be greatly delayed by adding the flesh or seeds of certain peppers to the flesh of animals. This was an especially welcome discovery in the warmer climates.

Of course preserving meat was only a first step in deriving any benefit from the discovery, the next was to be able to eat it. While the warming heat of cooking fires rapidly cooled, that of the peppers did not. Toleration of the peppers protective bite was required for consumption but soon after most people learned to eat pepper-protected meats, many began to find the warm flavor of the peppers a bit habit-forming and to prefer their addition for other than their power to preserve.

True pepper lovers generally feel that if a spicy food does not make their eyes water, it is lacking in flavor.

Lawrence Edward Bodkin, Sr.