The Apportionment of Human Diversity

  • R. C. Lewontin


It has always been obvious that organisms vary, even to those pre-Darwinian idealists who saw most individual variation as distorted shadows of an ideal. It has been equally apparent, even to those post-Darwinians for whom variation between individuals is the central fact of evolutionary dynamics, that variation is nodal, that individuals fall in clusters in the space of phenotypic description, and that those clusters, which we call demes, or races, or species, are the outcome of an evolutionary process acting on the individual variation. What has changed during the evolution of scientific thought, and is still changing, is our perception of the relative importance and extent of intragroup as opposed to intergroup variation. These changes have been in part a reflection of the uncovering of new biological facts, but only in part. They have also reflected general sociopolitical biases derived from human social experience and carried over into “scientific” realms. I have discussed elsewhere (Lewontin, 1968) long-term trends in evolutionary doctrine as a reflection of long-term changes in socioeconomic relations, but even in the present era of Darwinism there is considerable diversity of opinion about the amount or importance of intragroup variation as opposed to the variation between races and species. Muller, for example (1950), maintained that for sexually reproducing species, man in particular, there was very little genetic variation within populations and that most men were homozygous for wild-type genes at virtually all their loci.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Boyd, W. C. 1950. Genetics and the Races of Man. Boston, D. C. Heath and Co.Google Scholar
  2. Dolanský, L., and M. P. Dolansky. 1952. Table of log2 1/P, p.log2 1/p, and p.log2 l/p+ (l-p).log2 V(l-p). Technical Report 227, Research Laboratory of Electronics. Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  3. Dobzhansky, Th. 1954. A review of some fundamental concepts and problems of population genetics. Sympos. Quant. Biol., 20:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Giblett, E. R. 1969. Genetic Markers in Human Blood. Oxford and Edinburgh, Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Harris, H. 1970. The Principles of Human Biochemical Genetics. Amsterdam, North Holland Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  6. Hubby, J. L., and R. C. Lewontin. 1965. A molecular approach to the study of genetic heterozygosity in natural population. Genetics, 54:577–609.Google Scholar
  7. Lewontin, R. C. 1967. An estimate of the average heterozygosity in man. Amer. J. Hum. Genet. 19:681–685.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Lewontin, R. C. 1968. The concept of evolution. The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 5:202–209.Google Scholar
  9. Mourant, A. E. 1954. The Distribution of the Human Blood Groups. Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Mourant, A. E., A. C. Kopec, and K. Domaniewska-Sobczak. 1958. The ABO Blood Groups. Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Muller, H. J. 1950. Our load of mutations, Amer. J. Human. Gent., 2:111–176.Google Scholar
  12. Prakash, S., R. C. Lewontin, and J. L. Hubby. 1969. A molecular approach to the study of genic heterozygosity in natural populations. IV. Patterns of genic variation in central, marginal and isolated populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Genetics, 61:841–858.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Selander, R. K., and S. Y. Yang. 1969. Protein polymorphism and genic heterozygosity in a wild population of the house mouse (Mus musculus). Genetics, 63:563–667.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Meredith Corporation 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. C. Lewontin
    • 1
  1. 1.Committee on Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations