/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11256049
>first pic I found to prove you wrong
Very believable that the first pic you'd find is of an african crow instead of a western variety.
What I stated is still true as the black coloration acts as a flocking identifier which isn't easily broken. Here's a pic of the same species you disingenuously posted seen from the ground.
With this in mind, there's no correlation between crow/raven color and human skin color because human skin color is based on how much melanin is needed for optimal Vitamin D/Folate production.
>lots of crow species have two colors and were classified as different species
they weren't classified as different species just because of their colors... the first major reason why they are considered different species is because their ranges don't often overlap unless one or more species is invasive, and the second reason is that in this case they don't breed with the other species (queue anecdotal evidence of a crow and a raven breeding successfully despite instinct-based hostility in >99% of scenarios).
>black corvids with no obvious differences became subspecies of raven
this statement is false in two ways as there are many different species of ravens (maybe you're referring to common ravens alone erroneously) and ravens were classified based on size difference to crows and not coloration