[illivah]

In Star Trek Enterprise a body from the future had DNA fragments from something like a dozen different "species". Vulcans, Klingon, and Human were all included.

The thing about life boundries though in biology is that the more you know the less it makes sense. All bacteria are technically a single species, as are Archaea. Virus's aren't considered alive at all, though they do evolve. Then there are asexual creatures entirely. I vaguely recall a lizard that has no real genetic diversity because they are all females that reproduce without any sex, and there are no males. So... they're not a species either, but are still reproducing. Biology is screwy.

[sageikosa]

And all navel oranges are effectively clonal (with the requisite amount of replication drift). Dawkins chief subject of study was insects, so his books are filled with descriptions (and math!) of genetic similarity and divergence within different insect colonies. Some insect species have colonies whose members have a better than (human) sibling relationship with their "sisters", and in fact may even be (1/2) clonal instances of the queen, and full clonal instances of each other. The workers themselves are non-fecund, but their genes replicate on through the fertile queen. We certainly don't want to say the sterile workers are without species, and it may make more sense to think of the insect colony as a "super-organism"...if we could get past the fact that tissues and organs are distributed, but the long term success of the genetic line is concentrated in the germ-line.

[Retric]

This is somewhat complicated by royal jelly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_jelly

Post menopausal woman and some adult workers have both lost the ability to reproduce. But, they did have it in the past.

Which suggests the question; should we consider tribes a 'super' organism? As it includes and benefits from sterile members. What about things like monastic orders or wolf packs whose members forgo reproduction?