So, you aren't going to tell us what you mean when you say "species"? You're just going to keep using the term as if your implied demand that your evolutionism be assumed is reasonable.
Most non YECs at least seem to have very little problem in understanding the scientific definition of a species similar to that Wiki link I posted earlier. Which is basically centred on individuals being of the same species if they can produce viable offspring. There is clearly a few minor points of difference on some of the detail of course, but it nevertheless remains a largely workable definition for more reasonable people to use.
However the typical YEC is much more interested in any possible discrepancies that can be picked at than in anything else, since ultimately anything that tends toward the common ancestry of all life and an old Earth must automatically be presumed wrong however good and rigorous the science is, if a literal Genesis says otherwise.
YECs prefer a rational discussion; we will clearly define our terms up front and stick with them until they are shown untenable.
This from AiG's statement of faith rather says otherwise:
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/
The above says that a literal Genesis will always trump any science even if it cannot be faulted. A more honest and informed YEC like Kurt Wise knows when science cannot be faulted and says so but simply chooses to believe the Bible anyway by faith alone not rationality.