> another

I don't think there will even be an opportunity to do so: I speculate we will either be limited by a lack of motivation to supply necessary resources (the quest for AGI will dominate this) or ethics constraints that limit expert knowledge contributing to an endeavor.

Does this resolve for traditional, biological entities only, or would an AI/EM also count?

@lu I am refering to biological species; however, if all a lot of sentient life is uploaded, and we upgrade uploaded animals, this will probably resolve YES. That will be a judgement call on my part, so if you want more info on my thoughts, let me know.

Does this resolve yes based on a single member of the species, or does the entire species need to be recognized?

@MartinRandall Good question. It certainly does not have to be the entire species, but I was assuming a breeding population -- something worthy of the name Canis lupus sapiens, for example. However, I think that even one individual should technically count, as long as it is legally recognized as person, can be claimed to be largely or wholly a member of the base species, and could reasonably be recognized as a biological holotype of a new species or subspecies, without the need for a de facto breeding population or minimum population size. However, as a holotype, the legal definition of personhood should apply to all hypothetical members of this species (or subspecies). E.g., if all uberdolphins are assumed to be persons upon their creation/birth, this resolves YES (even if this is established with only one uberdolphin in existence), but if uberdolphins are only persons after passing a personhood test and there is no legal requirement to test a new uberdolphin, allowing one to continue treating it as a non-person, that would not yet be a YES.