[Agamemnon]

It should be noted that “Races” in Darwin’s title referred to what we would today more commonly refer to as “subspecies” or “breeds.” It did not specifically refer to human races. The term is still used in that way in botany and perhaps in other branches of biology.

Could you please supply an example where the term "Races" is used this way in a scholarly article or presentation in the field of "botany and perhaps in other branches of biology"?

FReegards!

[Sherman Logan]

http://ceventura.ucanr.edu/Com_Ag/Subtropical/Avocado_Handbook/Horticulture/Botany_-_Horticultural_Races_/

[GJones2]

> "Could you [Sherman Logan] please supply an example where the term 'Races' is used this way in a scholarly article or presentation in the field of 'botany and perhaps in other branches of biology'?"<

Here are a couple of examples from 19th-century encyclopedias: "The other dogs are not pure races, but have proceeded from commixtures of those already described." [Encyclopaedia Perthensis; or, Universal dictionary of Knowledge, 1816]

"The relationship of extinct races of plants and animals is various." [The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the Difussion of Useful Knowledge, 1838]

[GJones2]

Of course, the best way to see how Darwin uses the word 'races' is simply to search for it in context in the book itself [The Origin of Species]. Using my browser's Find function, I skimmed through the first twenty or so occurrences, and except for the very first one, which concerned human beings, all the others had to do with other species (both plants and animals).