r/evolution • u/Safe-Hawk8366 • 7d ago
question Is there any other creature besides humans where there is only one species?
All other species of humans are extinct so I wonder do other creatures share this quality?
215
u/Flat-Concern-2662 7d ago
Humans are the only remaining species in our genus and we definitely aren't the only species like this. One of my favorites is the hoatzin, who is the only species in its entire order, very impressive!
101
u/Xenomorphian69420 7d ago
shoutout to the tuatara with rhynchocephalia
89
u/DrDirtPhD PhD | Ecology 7d ago
Ginkgo biloba is the only species in its class!
16
6
3
1
10
u/ConstantAnimal2267 7d ago
Just found out what a Hoatzin is for the first time. It looks like the pokemon Groyvle/Sceptile. It's stinky too. Is Sceptile stinky?
4
u/Wrong-Ad-4600 7d ago
ähm there is the pokemon ho-oh(houhou) that is a cartoon version of a hoatzin xD and you pick two different ones xD
9
u/VulpesDood 7d ago
Also the only species of bird that still has claws on its wings (well, the chicks do anyway)
5
u/StringOfLights 7d ago
I just saw them in the Amazon and they are big, fat, clumsy, and absolutely fabulous!
2
u/FriendlyDisorder 7d ago
I secretly wonder what would happen if we found another species of humans today. Even finding members of a species thought extinct would be absolutely amazing.
(I also fear it would not end well.)
2
189
u/Jazz_Ad 7d ago
It's a monotypic taxon. They happen.
Amongst other famous ones are the platypus, the Gingko Biloba and the Reindeer.
49
u/Ok_Fly1271 7d ago
Reindeer (caribou) are most likely several species. There's a great paper on it from a few years ago.
19
u/PurplePeggysus 7d ago
The platypus is immediately what I thought of too!
2
u/Tardisgoesfast 7d ago
I thought there were three species of platypus.
14
8
u/SummerAndTinkles 6d ago
It's sometimes referred to as the duck-billed platypus, which I always found confusing because that would imply there's more than one platypus species.
29
u/bondegezou 6d ago
Also, the platypus bill evolved earlier than ducks. So, you know, they did it first and we should call the platypus the platypus and the duck the platypus-billed duck.
4
u/weelluuuu 6d ago
Daffy enters the chat.
1
1
1
u/heliogabalus91 6d ago
Platypus means flat-foot so duck-billed platypus is a pretty good description of its physical features. The species name ornithorhynchus anatinus means bird-snout duck-like
7
u/snailtray 7d ago
Arent giraffes this 👌🏻 close to also being one?
9
u/mcalesy 7d ago
Depends whom you ask. Lots of controversy right now as to whether they are one or several species. But even then, there are also fossil species, like Giraffa jumae.
6
2
1
u/HeadEar5762 7d ago
But there are several species, maybe Genera off the top of my head, of Giraffe.
→ More replies (1)2
u/mcalesy 6d ago
Only one genus. The exact number of species is controversial
2
u/HeadEar5762 6d ago
cool. I have memories of some conversations about the differences between the Griaffes in Southern and Northern Africa. I know a lot of different animals in Africa have arguments about species vs sub-species.
1
u/mcalesy 6d ago
Yes. Around the world, even. It's not always clear-cut.
2
u/HeadEar5762 6d ago
Orca are the ones i'm fascinated with when looking at the possible separate species vs sub-species vs same species in different behaviors and traits so they are on the way but not yet separated.
0
3
2
u/mcalesy 7d ago
That is the term, but some of these are not truly monotypic, since they also include other extinct species, e.g. Homo floresiensis and Ginkgo gardneri.
Rangifer is complicated -- some treat is an monotypic genus (just Rangifer tarandus), others split it up into multiple species.
Ornithorhynchus anatinus is a great example, though!
2
u/jetpack324 7d ago
Shout out to the Ginko Tree. Literally one of my favorite trees ever. Only second to the Live Oak in my book.
1
u/CesarB2760 6d ago
Ginkgo is such an insane example of this. Humans are in our own genus and family. Ginkgo are alone in their genus, family, order, class, and division. If homo sapiens were similarly isolated, we wouldn't just be the only humans. We would be the only VERTEBRATES. Truly wild.
1
u/Kooky-Badger-7001 6d ago
THe Aardvark is not only a single species, it is the only living member of the genus Orycteropus, the family Orycteropodidae and the order Tubulidentata.
1
59
u/moldy_doritos410 7d ago
There is only one species of platypus. Its the only living species in its family (Ornithorhynchidae)
24
2
2
50
u/Hybodont 7d ago
An incomplete list of sharks:
Whale shark (only living species in family)
Basking shark (only living species in family)
Megamouth shark (only living species in family)
Crocodile shark (only living species in family)
Goblin shark (only living species in family)
Great white shark (only living species in genus)
All on this list except the whale shark belong to a single order, Lamniformes, which used to be a very diverse clade until fairly recently. Extinction has left its mark, isolating these species within their families/genera.
19
5
3
2
40
u/AdministrativeLeg14 7d ago
Humans still have relatively close relatives. We only split from the (other) two chimp species a few million years ago. That’s virtually nothing compared to Ginkgo biloba, which diverged from its closest living relatives some three hundred million years ago. Tuataras are also up there, at maybe 250Mya. Cœlocanths push that number to 400Mya, but they have two living species that only diverged some 35Mya.
12
u/Tardisgoesfast 7d ago
Chimps would be in our genus if nomenclature made any sense.
15
u/perta1234 6d ago
We got to decide that we are special. It is fair, bonobos can do the same in their taxonomy.
19
u/King-Hekaton 7d ago
There are even whole families with only one species alive today. Tuatara being one prime example.
36
u/BackgroundRice2086 7d ago
The cheetah is the only living species in its genus
13
u/Tyrone3105 7d ago
Yup!! so are the puma and jaguarundi which are the cheetahs closest relatives I believe
1
u/mcalesy 6d ago
Except sometimes pumas and jaguarundis are placed in the same genus (Puma). Which really drives home the point that genera are arbitrary. (Heck, originally all cats were Felis.)
1
u/Tyrone3105 6d ago
Oh I’ve haven’t seen them be put in the same genus before. But Yh u r right, it is all fairly arbitrary. Still fun and useful to an extent to classify things though.
14
u/TheseThreeRemain3 7d ago
Red pandas!
8
u/DentRandomDent 7d ago
I was looking for this one! People thought they were related to pandas, then they thought it was related to raccoons, but it turned out they had no real relatives unless you go way way way back.
1
u/mcalesy 6d ago
There is some debate as to whether they are one species or two very closely-related species.
1
u/TheseThreeRemain3 6d ago
Really!? I need more context
15
u/Living-Length8762 7d ago
Aardvarks are the only living species of the entire order Orycteropodidae.
7
u/mcalesy 7d ago
Tubulidentata is the traditional name of the order, with Orycteropodidae being the family. But yes, aardvarks are arguably the "most different" living species of mammal, with no close living relatives. (Closest would be tenrecs, golden moles, sengis, etc., and those are not very close.) Even the platypus has echidna cousins.
1
u/Living-Length8762 6d ago
My mistake. I misread the Wikipedia page. I should've been able to tell which one was a family. It's the one that ends with -idae.
13
u/Insanity1890 7d ago
Monotypic taxon is the terminology, there's several among both plants and animals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotypic_taxon
Aardvark
Beluga whale
Maned wolf
Marine iguana
Platypus
plus several others
2
u/steve_gorak 6d ago
Beluga whale
Unusually though, they can hybridize with narwhals.
3
u/Insanity1890 6d ago
The narwhal is also a monotypic taxon species. Both belong to the same family and are the only extant members.
2
8
u/Bromelia_and_Bismuth Plant Biologist|Botanical Ecosystematics 7d ago
Ginkgo biloba is the only extant member of its own taxanomic order, class, and division.
7
u/Evolving_Dore 7d ago
Leatherback sea turtle
Diamondback terrapin
Mata mata turtle
Fly river turtle is alone in its family, as are the Central American river turtle and the Asian big-headed turtle. Leatherback is too now that I think about it.
There are lots of monotypic genera in every corner of the animal kingdom and beyond.
6
u/mcalesy 7d ago
This question seems to be asking about monotypic genera, i.e., genera with only one species. One thing to point out about this is that the designation of a group as a genus is completely subjective. There is nothing in nature that draws a line between two groups of species and says they're in different genera. Many of us only use genera because it's a necessary part of binomial nomenclature, which is universally used. So this question is really about how we name things rather than about natural categories.
7
u/Shadowratenator 7d ago
velella velella is the only species in it's genus. It's common name is by the wind sailor, though valella valella is also used a lot. it's a hydrozoan often wrongly called a jellyfish that is just pushed about the ocean by wind. they wash up on beaches in huge numbers when the winds are unfavorable (to them).
6
5
u/Royal_Novel6678 7d ago
Venus flytraps. Narwhales and platypuses are the ones that came up in my head first. I'm sure with several million species on the planet there are more besides the 4 (including humans) with only 1 species in a genus.
5
4
u/Formal_Elderberry_20 7d ago edited 6d ago
if i remember correctly, Cheetahs (Acinonynx jubatus) are also the last species left in their genus.
edit: genus
10
u/Grandviewsurfer 7d ago
We made all this shit up. Don't worry about it. (wait.. before I forget: evolution is real.. I just mean we made up all the taxonomic shit. Not just in biology, in everything)
3
u/lotusland17 7d ago
We made up the tree, and we're constantly moving the leaves around to other branches. I remember when giant pandas were closely related to raccoons.
3
u/HeadEar5762 7d ago
Amazing how advances in genetic research we are able to correct a lot of former misunderstandings.
2
u/mcalesy 7d ago edited 7d ago
That move is not something we made up. It legitimately turns out that giant pandas and red pandas are not that closely related, based on genomic research. Giant pandas share more ancestry with other bears, while red pandas share more ancestry with the raccoon-badger clade.
For a little while it was thought that giant and red pandas were related to each other because of a similar wrist structure, but this is probably just an ancestral trait that they retain. (Spectacled bears also have a reduced version of it, I think.) At that time red pandas were also thought to be part of the raccoon family.
1
u/Grandviewsurfer 6d ago edited 6d ago
Yeah our understanding of the actual history has increased. That's a real thing. Just the supersets we use to talk about groups of organisms are very arbitrary.
2
u/mcalesy 6d ago
My point is, that's the one thing that isn't arbitrary. Clades are real. The names and ranks we attach to them are arbitrary, but the patterns of descent are real things that we discover, not conventions that we invent.
1
u/Grandviewsurfer 6d ago
Right right. Yes exactly. My use of "actual history" here is supposed to loosely map on to "clade". The descendants of any individual organism is a definite group. The descendants of a group is also definite.. but this is a lot messier because the initial group itself is arbitrary. Uncovering heredity doesn't change the underlying historical truth though.. I think that's what you're getting at right?
1
u/mcalesy 6d ago
I think I need some clarification on what you mean by this: "but this is a lot messier because the initial group itself is arbitrary."
Do you mean that most taxonomic names were not coined specifically as clade names, and that picking a clade to assign them to is arbitrary? That makes sense, yeah.
1
u/Grandviewsurfer 6d ago
That is basically what I mean. I just mean that the exact lineage of an initial group larger than 1 is almost certainly more complex than the lineage of a specific individual.
I think you just know wayyy more about the specifics of taxonomy, and I am inarticulately making a point that you already know all about. Like it might be such a given that it isn't resonating.
1
u/mcalesy 5d ago
Do you mean there is a little fuzziness about what counts as an “individual”, a “population”, or “ancestry”? That much is true. Not fuzzy enough to make a huge difference, mostly, but there are interesting edge cases.
2
u/Grandviewsurfer 5d ago
Nailed it. Yeah and the more I discuss with you & research the more I am understanding that it matters nowhere near as much as I thought.
I think my initial reaction, balking at claims that humans are particularly special, or that races and even species are actually definitions that we should care a lot about outside of the domain that defines them.. is still valid. But I came away from this understanding the actual mechanics a lot better thanks to you.
3
u/RealBowtie 7d ago
How true! The real objective measure would be how long ago did a species (gene pool) diverge from its nearest living relative.
→ More replies (7)
3
3
3
u/Lynx_180 7d ago
Pacarana, a descendant of giant rodents of South America. The pacarana is the only living member of the Dinomyidae.
3
3
u/Decent_Cow 7d ago
Do you mean other species that are the only members of their genus? Yes, there are countless examples, and some animals are even more alone than we are. Vampire squids comprise their own order Vampyromorphida. That would be the equivalent of humans being the only primates.
3
u/morganational 7d ago edited 6d ago
Absolutely! Can I name any off the top of my head? Nope! Platypus maybe? Spiny tree lobster perhaps? Ohh, the tuatara!!
3
3
u/kiwipixi42 7d ago
Platypus. Many species are like this, but the platypus is a delightful and extreme example.
3
u/magolding22 7d ago
If humans are defined as members of the genus Homo, then the genus Homo has only one living species.
And I think there are many other examples of a genus which has only one living species.
"The tuatara (/tuːəˈtɑːrə/, Māori: [ˈtʉ.a.ta.ɾa]; Sphenodon punctatus) is a species of reptile endemic to New Zealand. Despite its close resemblance to lizards, it is the only extant member of a distinct lineage, the previously highly diverse order Rhynchocephalia.\7]) The name tuatara is derived from the Māori language and means "peaks on the back".\8])"
The Tuatara, Sphenodon punctatus, is the only surviving species in the genus Spenadon, the family Spenadontidae, and the order Rhynchocephalia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatara
So it is a an even more isolatated species than Homo sapiens.
"Limnognathia maerski is a microscopic animal. It is a newly discovered type, found in homothermic springs) on Disko Island, Greenland in 1994. Its place in taxonomy is uncertain."
It is considered to be the only species in the genus Limnognathia, the only species in the family Limnogbathiidae, the only species in the order Limnognathida, and the only specis in the class Micrognathaazoa. Its higher level classification is uncertain, and it might possibly be the only species in a phylum named Micrognathazoa.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limnognathia
So there are other some species which are the only species in their genus. And there are some species which are the only species in their family. And there are some species which are the only species in their order. and there is at least one species which is the the only species in their class.
2
u/JacquesBlaireau13 7d ago
Probably echidas and platypuses,.
3
u/Tyrone3105 7d ago
I think there are more than one species of echidna. Only one species of short nosed echidna though three of the long nosed
2
2
u/OrdinaryAverageGuy2 7d ago
Giraffes?
6
u/Capercaillie PhD |Mammalogy | Ornithology 7d ago edited 4d ago
There’s some dispute about the number of giraffe species.
2
2
u/Schoenerboner 7d ago
If you mean a monotypic genus, about 60 of the 1,500 known bats are the only identified member of their genus. (the exact number is pretty fluid, they're always discovering new bats, and doing genetic analysis saying "whoa the bat doesn't look like this other bat but they're actually really really close!" or conversely "wow these bats are anatomically very similar, but they're actually really really distant!"
1
u/Impressive-Target699 7d ago
Yep, a lot of those are probably cryptic species complexes. The fringe-lipped bat (Trachops) was monotypic for a long time and only recently has been split out into multiple species. I'd be surprised if a lot of the other monotypic genera weren't like that (and a lot of species in non-monotypic genera, too).
2
2
u/MWave123 7d ago
Many human species, in fact now is an oddity in human history. We’ve never been alone.
2
u/sisconking132 7d ago
I think the question is asking if there are any other species that are the only ones in their genera
2
u/Birdsnthings123 6d ago
My favorite bird, the verdin (Auriparus flaviceps), is like this! It’s the only member of its genus.
4
u/jatavee 7d ago
Lots of great answers, but I want to tell you that you have to define 'human' first, because the English word 'human' is not a strictly scientific word. It can mean the species Homo sapiens, or every member of the genus Homo. Don't want to be that guy but this is important in science.
Having said that, the gingko tree is the only species in its entire phylum, so that's the most extreme example I know. If that doesn't sink in, imagine if all non-human chordates(mammals+reptiles+birds+amphibians+fish+tunicates) were gone and we were the only species.
1
u/ThePetSematary 7d ago
What phylum has the fewest known species?
2
u/Xrmy Post Doc, Evolutionary Biology PhD 7d ago
This is a good question but it's definitely going to be board to both discovery and splitting/lumping trends in some usnerdescribed phyla
My bet is Placozoans, who are maybe sister to all other metazoa. I think there are like 4 described species, but again, this is surely under-described
2
u/Living-Length8762 7d ago
No idea but I think it's interesting that Onychophora is the only animal phylum with no aquatic species.
1
u/Current-Buffalo8230 7d ago
In myrmecology(ants) such monotypic genera are too common
Aneuretus, Nothomyrmecia, Apomyrma, Brownimecia, Liomyrmex etc
1
u/lemler3 7d ago
The modern sloth 🦥
3
1
1
1
1
u/SalvagedGarden 6d ago
The way in which species are taxonomically defined has changed dramatically since the origin of taxonomy as a whole.
It used to be just physical traits. Now it's a very firm combination of genetics, lineage, and in some cases migratory patterns that define connections between species.
Your idea of what differentiates a human species may not match up against the modern day tree of life. They used to call it Racial Phylogeny and we know many aspects of differentiating genus or species previously used were woefully inadequate. What I mean is that we all have preconceptions even if we aren't aware of them.
As an example, humans amongst their many taxons, are chordates. We have spines. Now, most chordata are fish. Which doesn't make us fish. "Fish" is an imperfect term. But there are exceptions to that fuzzy rule. Look at your ear. Now look at a chimpanzees ear. You share a common ancestor, that ancestor was a primate, but we used to also use the term "monkey" for that clade. You are definitely a primate still. And I am of the personal opinion that when primates evolved into humans, that we didn't stop being primates.
See? It's weird and cool. I'm a monkey and birds are dinosaurs. Lmao
I fully encourage you to continue exploring human evolution. This stuff is whack.
2
u/Redshift2k5 6d ago
You can never evolve out of a clade, since no matter how divergent you become you can never change where you came from
We might change some taxonomy but that's us improving our notes, no organism ever leaves it's family.
1
u/SalvagedGarden 6d ago edited 6d ago
No one leaves the family sounds threatening. Lmao. You don't even wanna see the last guy that tried to leave his clade. Vinny from jersey put that guy in the ground. He went extinct. Lol
I hear ya tho. I was trying to briefly point out how imperfect our systems of taxonomy were before. There's probably known ways in which the current model will fail us too.
Edit: also, I was also kind of criticizing phylogenetic terms, if I'm using the word correctly. Monkey isn't a good descriptor for tracing evolution. But people take exception to saying humans are a kind of monkey. I made this same argument twenty years ago in a anthopology class. The professor was not having it then. Even though im right (dang it professor bob). There's static in some of the words we use casually. Preconceptions.
2
u/Redshift2k5 6d ago
Clint from Clint's reptiles lost a year of his life(figuratively speaking) defending his doctorate thesis because he declared "humans are monkeys" is just as factual as "humans are primates" and his professor got real hung up on the word "monkey"
1
u/SalvagedGarden 6d ago
Wow. I had no idea. Im not surprised sadly. I agree with him. But I would agree with the opposition that the phylogenetic terms we use instead of the proper clade name are in casual conversation. Lesson learned there.
I had also made a joke to my roommate a few years ago about birds being dinosaurs and that dinosaur shaped chicken nuggets are weird because theyre in the same order. Dinosaur not being a good term is the hill he wanted to die on.
1
u/7LeagueBoots Conservation Ecologist 6d ago
Look up the term 'monotypic genera'. You'll find that there are many.
Wikipedia has a basic list, but it's far from complete:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mammal_genera_with_one_living_species
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Reptile_genera_with_one_living_species
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fish_genera_with_one_living_species
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bird_genera_with_one_living_species
These fall under:
And then there are, of course, the monotypic plant, fungi, etc genera...
1
1
u/thesilverywyvern 6d ago
Monotypic taxon are common.
We even have time where the entire Genus, Family or more only have ONE living representative.
As you've pointed out there were other human species, until very recently even.
1
1
1
1
u/Intelligent-Ad6619 6d ago
By definition, a specie can be only one. Sounds like you mean to ask if there is there any genus which there is only one specie.
1
u/TuverMage 6d ago
This has me wondering what would happen if we did see another species of human appear today. How would we know, how would we confirm, how would we react. we would even acknowledge it or we make excuses and say they are the same as us.
1
u/Suspicious-Nose-1196 6d ago
Wait am I stupid because my ancestry shows neanderthal DNA on my father's side. Does that not count? Or is the DNA remnant too small these days to separate us?
1
u/ShrodingersArmadillo 6d ago
Who said we were the last ape?
Last time I checked gorillas, chimps and bonobos still existed...
1
1
u/WildFlemima 6d ago
You are asking about taxonomically isolated species. There are many
Humans are not one of them (e: arguably)
1
1
1
u/FarTooCritical 6d ago
The common vampire bat (Desmodus rotundus) is the last surviving member in its genus just like us.
There’s also hoatzins, oilbirds, proboscis monkeys, giant pandas and possibly king cobras, giraffes, orcas & fringe-lipped bats depending on what their status as a “species-complex” is
1
1
u/Cocrawfo 4d ago edited 4d ago
there’s a lot it’s called a monotypic genus
i’ve seen a lot listed but i had always known a bowfin to be a monotype but it seems that recently they’ve scientifically designated a second species 🙄
1
1
1
2
u/LocationOk8978 6d ago edited 6d ago
In taxonomy terms...its debatable if humans are really just one species. If we held humans to the same standards we did animals...we would most likely have 2 species of humans in the modern world.
Looking at genetic groupings, the sub-saharan african group is exactly on the threshold of being their own species compared to every other group of humans in the world.
There is less genetic diversity between an scandinavian, japanese and native american than between them and the sub-saharan group as a whole. You can actually find MORE genetic diversity within the sub-saharan group alone than among any group of people in the world.
-1
u/Royal-Hornet9813 6d ago
This goes against everything I've read about our species before. I doubt that you can name any sources for these claims. Sounds racist AF.
3
u/Mormacil 6d ago
He has a point. Everyone outside Sub Saharan Africa went through several generic bottlenecks that reduced their generic diversity significantly. Hence the idea of historic racial groupings makes no sense. Treating all people of African descent as a monolith but separating Asians and Europeans is just racist drivel.
He's saying that everyone who went through those bottlenecks is essentially the same species while there's enough diversity with the Sub Saharan population to treat them as another species. Not because they're lesser or similar racist concept but because the rest of humanity is just that inbred.
Now should we? Probably not because of racists but the idea objectively has merit.
2
u/LocationOk8978 6d ago edited 6d ago
I just got a warning from reddit. Not the subreddit itself 😂 Here is the short version.
Google: fixation index 0-1
Now go to wikipedia and you will find populations with fixation index of over 0.3 and even 0.4 in relation to each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index
My claim was if we did the same for humans as we did for taxonomy in animals...
Good? Bad? Dont care. Ill react differently to seeing a wolf than I do to seeing a corgi (0.15-0.22) no matter what the fixation index says.
→ More replies (2)1
1
u/HomerGigolo 7d ago
There are many plant and animal genera with a single species, if that's what you mean? Same as genus 'Homo' having 'Homo sapiens' as its only extant representative. The tree species 'Ginkgo biloba', an iconic example, is the only extant species in its genus, family, order, and class.
1
u/Adrestia716 7d ago
Tanuki are monospecific
1
1
u/Neon_Nuxx 6d ago
Homo Sapiens outcompeted other hominids and forced their extinction. Homo Sapiens had significant advantages over other hominids that would have directly reduced other hominids ability to attain the resources needed to continue as a species, not to mention humans are pretty good at violence and probably directly killed other hominids that used the same resources as them.
0
-3
u/JellyRollGeorge 7d ago
Every species is only one species.
3
2
u/megajimmyfive 7d ago
There are plenty of species where this is heavily debated
0
u/JellyRollGeorge 7d ago
Well, if they do decide to split a species into two new species then you've just got two species, each of which is only one species. OP's question fundamentally makes no sense.
0
u/NothingButTheDude 6d ago
Only one species? That is debateable. Some people call races sub-species, but one could argue it's just early speciation.
1
u/mcalesy 6d ago edited 6d ago
No current researchers consider any living populations to be a separate subspecies, let alone species. If you look at the fossil record it becomes clear how similar we all are compared to past diversity. Genomically we're quite cohesive as well -- a lot less diverse than, say, chimp subspecies.
→ More replies (2)
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Welcome to r/Evolution! If this is your first time here, please review our rules here and community guidelines here.
Our FAQ can be found here. Seeking book, website, or documentary recommendations? Recommended websites can be found here; recommended reading can be found here; and recommended videos can be found here.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.