# Talk:Species

I reorganized the lead to better represent the general concept of a species rather than specifically the biological species concept—though my edits were reverted so I'm explaining here why I think they should stand. Starting the article with one definition of a species according to the biological species concept is misleading, as it doesn't apply to the many species that reproduce asexually. Below is my proposed change.
"A species (pl. species) is the basic unit often classification and a taxonomic rank of an organism, as well as a unit of biodiversity. It can be defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. It is the basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank of an organism, as well as a unit of biodiversity." MossOnALog (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

The lead is meant to proportionally summarize the content in the body. Do you have any actual justification in either the material in the body or the cited sources why you feel species as a "immanent" concept should be prioritized over species as a concept constructed in the pursuit of science? That's what I understand the issue to be, at least. The material presently in the § Definition section would seem to make any confident assertion up-front a clearly poor or tendentious summary. The emphasis that the motivation for the concept of a species arises from successful production of fertile offspring seems entirely justified—and I would worry about obscuring that basal motivation for the concept. Remsense 🌈 论 20:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
The sentence explaining that a species is a unit of of taxonomy and biodiversity is more broadly applicable to understanding what a species actually is, while the sentence stating the definition of a species in terms of ability to sexually reproduce is limited in scope to taxa that reproduce sexually and therefore leads to confusion for students trying to better understand the concept of a species (and is increasingly less commonly used as a definition by taxonomists even for taxa that do reproduce sexually). I don't think a rearrangement of two sentences requires citation. MossOnALog (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
What is a species if it isn't in some way reliant on the notion of sexual compatibility? The body of the article makes perfectly clear this is the case, and the concept is then extrapolated outward as a sensible taxonomical unit even concerning asexually reproducing organisms. There is no substance to the core notion of species I'm aware of, and certainly the article doesn't presently mention any. One of my main points here is that you can't just tweak the lead to what you think it should say, even if you're right, because our readers then read the actual article, now straightforwardly intends to say something different. Remsense 🌈 论 21:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
You are misunderstood that sexual compatibility is a requirement to be considered a species. Using a narrow definition of species, especially an increasingly outdated one, in the opening sentence is an example of zoocentric bias and tends to confuse students and people unfamiliar with taxonomy. Your last statement is also incorrect—there is no reason an editor cannot change the lead if one is making a good-faith effort to improve the article. MossOnALog (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
I read over the section in question again, and it clicked the extent to which reproductive isolation isn't given the primacy it is in the lead. Thank you for your patience in explaining the issue, I appreciate it. Remsense 🌈 论 21:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
You are welcome. I will consider the consensus to be keeping my edit then? MossOnALog (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
I've already put it back. Remsense 🌈 论 21:25, 26 September 2025 (UTC)