Well, they would be a different species within the animal classification I’d assume (regarding the big cat).
But say a poodle and a cocker spaniel breed, that new breed within the dog species doesn’t make them a wolf, right?
I promise, I am not being argumentative or intentionally obtuse, but these are questions I’ve never had answered really and I start to think maybe it IS me. Maybe I am just too dull to grasp it. And then that leaves me to ‘leaving it to the scientists’, but it still doesn’t answer my basic questions that nag. I mostly leave this subject alone to ‘I just have NO IDEA’ until the subject comes up. As it has now.
They’d be a mutt with attributes of each. But the offspring would be able to breed with another dog so they are the same species.
If your instinct tells you that that it's all Politics with a capital P behind much of biological science, then your instincts are correct. Just as Phil Jones and Michael Mann have corrupted "climate science" (whatever the heck that means) by their own greed, vanity, and ideology, so too do biological scientists seek self-aggrandizement over humble scientific inquiry.
Just remember the word "species" is quite malleable, especially by those on the Left. My personal opinion is that the word is being corrupted for political gain. After all, if we can split the western flycatcher into 2 suboscine species that are virtually identical -- the Cordilleran and the pacific-slope -- then in a roundabout way, we've "proven" the exigency and expedition of evolution in action, haven't we?
They took the word "gay," and corrupted it. They're trying to take the word "marriage" and corrupt it. Tomorrow, it will be the word "species."
Yes, appalling.
It is not you.