New Amsterdam in particular, and the New World colonies generally prior to the Colonist Chimpout of '75

>Englishman Henry Hudson hires himself out to Dvtch merchantmen in the East India Company after failing to sail north around Russia
>discovers the Hudson river, plants the seed of Dvtch colonialism in the New World which leads to the peg-legged governorship of Peter Stuyvesant (noted Jew hater extraordinare but chill with freed blacks kek) in New Amsterdam before the Brits came knocking
>Hudson, the poor bastard, gets fucking mutinied in the Artic Circle (Hudson Bay) with his son and six others on a raft, literally left to starve or freeze to death whichever comes first
>followed by French Chad Samuel de Champlain, future governor of New France
>first to see the Great Lakes with Henry IV's (rest in power, King) patronage
>gets shut down by that faggot Louis XIII
>friend to the savages, all around amazing dude (get David Fischer's book, you won't regret it)
>Johnny Smith and the gang in the backwater swamplands of Virginia
>Smith was such a Chad he made people seethe uncontrollably just by drawing oxygen
>Edwin Sandys, contemporary to everyone mentioned, fucking plants the seed of representative democracy in Virginia right under the King's nose
>grows into the Tree of Liberty
>Christopher Newport, one of the most successful 'Elizabethan Sea Dogs' (privateer) to sack the Spanish Main, Captain of the Susan Constant that sailed to Jamestown, AND fellow explorer with Smith who planted a cross at the Fall Line in Richmond
>James VI and I, speaks for himself
>Pedro Menendez de Aviles, founder of the Spanish Main voyages and governor of Spanish Florida whose actions underlay everything mentioned
The Mutt Revolution of '75 is highkey the least interesting part of New World colonization when you really start digging into what led up to it all. I didn't even mention the wars between the European powers in the 18th century for control over American land claims

>>936466692
give peace a chance

The real problem with divisions of species isn't that they are just guidelines, but that nobody can agree on the rules. Evolutionary biologists have proposed almost 30 different species definitions (called "species concepts") over the years, and none of them apply to all organisms. For example, the "no fertile offspring" definition is a paraphrase of one of the most popular species concepts called the Biological Species Concept (BSC), which actually states that a species is "a population or group of populations reproductively isolated from other such groups". "Reproductively isolated" in this case can mean "no fertile offspring", but it can also mean "they never encounter each other" or "they don't see each other as potential mates". The problems with the BSC are: 1. it doesn't work for organisms that reproduce asexually, 2. lots of organisms we would otherwise call different species have hybrids from time to time, and 3. reproductive isolation is actually really difficult to test (many organisms will hybridize in captivity but almost never in nature). As I said, there's like 30 more definitions of species that have been proposed, and most of them are slight modifications of other species concepts to fix problems with them (and introducing new problems lol). Some researchers have tried to come up with a definition that unifies all these different definitions (e.g. "a species is an independently-evolving metapopulation lineage"), but unified definitions fall apart because they're almost impossible to apply in the real world (how do you determine if something is "independently-evolving" or part of a metapopulation?).