>>88745671>Seeing how fast you replied, you didn't read my link. If you did however you would see that, as I said, is a gross simplification.It's a simplification, but this definition is questioned, not because of it's lack of validity, but because it does not regroup all the cases that are recognised as species.
Not all species fit that definition, but if a group fit that definition, then it is a species. It's not an exclusive definition, but it is unquestionably inclusive; Therefore, the mutants are all part of the same species.
>it's more like having an insect, a mammal and a crustacean on the same speciesThe thing is, you consider them mammal, insect and crustaceans when we are not even sure they belong to any of those group anymore. The only thing that could still be argued is that, as they all have anthropoid features, they might still be considered to be mammal on some, with some added features.
the method of using features to consider them as different species is even more questionable, as normally, to belong to a species, you have to, in some way, transmit those features. Yet, apart from the anthropoid aspect, we know it's all random. Making the use of features as a way to distinct species completly invalids.
>Was that fish, in your shredded 'species' definition a human, a member of the 'whatever' species or a fish?If it could grow to become fecund, then he would of the same species as Holly.
A this point, I think it's simpler to consider the mutants belong to a new Genum, the tricky part is that Human would belong to this new Genum to, but we have actually seen that they are considered as mutant to by the topsiders and that Crazy Apex Scientist.
