it's pretty fucking right imo

So you can define species only by breeding capacity (which means that asexual creatures can't be of a species, but whatever)

But that doesn't make two species that can interbreed, but are very different, any less different

they still are what they are

And we'll just use some other word to describe what they are, like race, sub species, strain, etc

However, since the desire of the word species is to be a universal category of genetic similarity across life, including asexual life forms, your defintion doesn't hold up

fake news

write short paragraphs too

way too long

It also doesn't hold up since the desire is for organisms of the same species to be more similar to each other than organisms of other species, which isn't always the case if you only define it by breeding potential

It's possible for creatures that are less similar in appearance and other traits to be able to interbreed

huh

did not read

race doesn't exist

fake news

```Wilkins further grouped the species concepts into seven basic kinds of concepts: (1) agamospecies for asexual organisms (2) biospecies for reproductively isolated sexual organisms (3) ecospecies based on ecological niches (4) evolutionary species based on lineage (5) genetic species based on gene pool (6) morphospecies based on form or phenotype and (7) taxonomic species, a species as determined by a taxonomist.[73]```

fake news

Whew lads, the only criterion for speciation is breeding

look at me, I'm a book reading leftist, I'm smart

yes it is lmao

go back to reading wiki articles

lmao

Give me one source

from any book

supporting your claim that it is the only criterion

nope

You can't, nigger

fake news

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/phc3.12468

@Hagel

Bloody retarded m8

unrelated to what we spoke of

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.13110/humanbiology.86.3.0227

cringed

Changing the topic now

You're not worthy of my time

nope you aren't

muhh wikipedia

no studies

lmao