Ok-disaster2022 t1_j6gr8yy wrote on January 30, 2023 at 5:04 AM

Are we sure they're not subspecies? To me, so long as members of each subspecies can produce genetically viable offspring, they're still subspecies. I don't think it should matter if there's distinguishing features or geographic reasons why the two groups don't mate, the defining characteristic has got to be genetic. So wolves and dogs are subspecies that haven't fully diverged yet, but lions and tigers or horses and donkeys are clearly different species.

Biologists like to name species or whatever, and biology is rife with bad toxonomy and organisation because it doesn't want to rely on objective measurement that can undermine the accomplishments of leaders in the field. And that's bad science. If science achievements can only progress one funeral at a time, then the scientific achievement is broken.

CryptidGrimnoir t1_j6hkr12 wrote on January 30, 2023 at 11:21 AM

Wolves and coyotes are classified as separate species, but they can produce fertile offspring.

And among Panthera hybrids--ligers, tigons, etc.--the females are fertile.

It's rare, but mules are capable of breeding as well.

Frogloggers t1_j6h1lc2 wrote on January 30, 2023 at 6:56 AM

> To me, so long as members of each subspecies can produce genetically viable offspring, they're still subspecies.

This definition of a species doesn't really work in practice. There exists species (or in your view populations), let's call them species B, that are able to produce viable offspring with both species A and C. However, species A and C cannot produce viable offspring as the genetic distance is just too much.