Interesting post and you present a convincing theory for us to consider the number of elephant species to be three and not two as previously thought. I did a dissertation on elephant vocalisations twenty-odd years ago. They're remarkable animals, aren't they?
I think when it comes to defining what constitutes separate species and what doesn't, there'll always be a bit of a minefield. Take lions and tigers, for example. Traditionally, one definition went something like: a species is a group of organisms that can mate to produce fertile offspring whilst not being able to with any other group. But ligers and tigons can also breed. And then, closer to home, what about humans who can't? Who are infertile?
Maybe nature is too big to pigeon-holed and maybe it shouldn't be. Within a species, it's like there's one great continuum (at least in the big cat example above). Where do you draw the line? Maybe it's the fact that we typically look at life at the species / individual level. If we look at the genetic level, there will be further exceptions to our definitions, no doubt.
Thanks for posting. It was an interesting read. And I'm sure we'll forever stick to the traditional methods of classifying animals as they're no doubt the most convenient methods. :)
Yeah, you are absolutely onto something here. The debate about what is a species and what is not is really heated, and it's changing all the time. Most modern species are determined more by genetics than the class "whom can have children with whom" definition that used to be common back in the days.
What I believe is that we will never get a clear definition of what a species is. In nature, everything is as you say a continuum, and we humans want to categorize everything, which is impossible to do with nature. Really, what we're trying to do is to categorize all life on earth, so of course it will be next to impossible to make it nice and easy.
Thanks for leaving a great comment, @zool237! I'm sorry I didn't get to reply to your earlier.
Best regards from @valth