1. This review would be greatly improved if notions like "social construct" and "biologically real" were clearly defined and analyzed. When this is done, race is usually shown to be biologically real, or all of taxonomy will be shown to be socially constructed.
2. The comments about race also need to be situated in the context of historical thought. Noting that culture influences racial categories or that the number of races is arbitrary is consistent with what many anthropologists thought back when racial categories were widely used.
3. Nearly all the evidence on race and IQ is ignored. The single exception is Bird's paper suggesting that currently known CA-related alleles, which explain a fraction of the heritable variance in intelligence, at best explain a fraction for the B-W IQ gap. This is not good... 
4. evidence against hereditarianism and the result is not described accurately.
The tests concerning selection are only relevant to a specific version of hereditarianism and were themselves problematic, though I wouldn't fault most people for not realizing this.
The tests concerning selection are only relevant to a specific version of hereditarianism and were themselves problematic, though I wouldn't fault most people for not realizing this.
5. Oh, and it is never shown (as opposed to asserted) that race and population are not interchangeable, or that races don't meet the criteria traditionally used to define races.
