When conveying opinions about what is to be conserved, conservation biologists often speak in terms of larger-than-organismic units, namely, populations and species. For example, it may be seen fit to conserve the gray wolf (Canis lupus) and “the potential to maintain a significant wolf population” (Mladenoff et al. 1995: 279). It is noteworthy that, in the cases of both populations and species, it would appear, in contrast to the above cases of water and energy, we can point out individual cases of each. It seems to make sense, on the face of it, to speak of “a population” or “a species,” and this linguistic convention is widely practiced in conservation biology. What’s more, the practice of such a convention seems to align more closely with the definition of conservation as pertaining to something, since it appears we can speak of a particular instance of a population or a species. However, this way of referring to supposedly super-organismal natural entities (let us call them SONEs) may not agree with experience, as it is unclear whether a particular instance of a population or a species can be witnessed. If it turns out to be difficult or impossible to identify SONEs—to know them when we see them, or otherwise experience them—then perhaps their status as mind-independent natural entities may come into question.