We are talking about species -- groups -- not individuals.
Species that do not reproduce but CAN are lions and tigers. Without our assistance, they'd never reproduce. That's why they are different species.
So you are saying if two groups of animals CAN reproduce but don't are considered different species - OK - what are groups that CAN'T reproduce called?
Like I said earlier - can you provide any supporting evidence for your claims?
Well I am guessing you have not reproduced with Pussy Cat Dolls (a group) (even though you could) - me neither - we are a group - what do you want to call out species?
....jeeze, it's a joke - lighten up.
There are stories of this happening in the wild though. Then there's Ted, the rejected chimpanzee who had 47 chromosomes ~ somebody was doing some "testing" of the hypothesis with that little fellow.
They're speciated from each other, just not too long ago. If all we had were fossil skeletons, we'd have no clue that it had happened at all, BTW.
We have examples of even more recent and less complete speciation, such as rings species in birds and salamanders. Horses and donkeys are an example of a more complete speciation. (Mules and hinnys are almost always sterile.)
In fact, we have almost any degree of speciation and not-quite speciation one might expect if evolution were producing the diversity of life. What we don't see are any easy, natural groupings of created kinds unrelated to each other.