Can you help me untangle this question about species?

Yes. Things get tricky the closer you are to the branching off of species, and there are experts who would actually prefer that coyotes be regarded as a “breed”.

And wolves would be a different breed? And dogs would be hundreds of different breeds of dogs.

But I think the wolves came first. The other canines are their descendants

Interesting. I’ll go look further. Thanks.

Species etc are taxonomical categories.

What can breed with what is based on the actual situation, not the categories zoologists have arranged them into, though it tends to align that way because of the types of reasons the zoologists tend to choose to organize their taxonomies.

Could you be more specific?

I think @Zaku is saying that taxonomists are not always on the money in their classifications. But the one thing on which everyone agrees is that if 2 supposed species are interbreeding, the mistake is in the classification of one of them. In other words, it’s the taxonomists who made the mistake, not nature.

Yes, species is a concept from a categorization system which tries to organize creatures that way. That concept may relate mostly very accurately to actual things in the nature of creatures, but it’s not a first-order real thing.

And the fact that creatures mutate and evolve belies the idea that species stay in neat imaginary boxes.

And also, see genetic hybrids – which is a counter-example that no, the first question in the question description (i.e. ”Only animals of the same species can produce viable offspring, right?” is not true.

Members of a species, correctly defined, by definition should be (in many if not all cases) able to produce viable offspring, but that doesn’t mean only animals of the same species can.

That’s a question for Glen on FB.

^ Or Cris. Just wanted to give everyone something to talk about here.

Thanks @stanleybmanly. Very interesting.

@Dutchess_III

I miss crisw. She was a brilliant advocate for most non-human organisms.

I have her on Facebook.