Sorry, I’m used to use the word race in a fantasy setting and species in a natural setting. A race in a fantasy world is any species a character of that story can belong to.

This gets confusing e.g. in Star Trek where races exist in the fantasy sense and in a cultural sense (e.g. Being black (cultural race) is as much a part of Benjamin Sisko as being a human (biological race) is).

Yes, I agree. I just feel it important here, as the divides are huge, both culturally and especially physicallly, than what we used to think of as 'race' between humans.

In Lord of the Rings, humans, elves, and orcs can all interbreed, so they are all the same species.

Different species can also interbreed in the natural world. E.g. wolves and coyotes regularly produce fertile offspring (most often via dogs since wolves and coyotes mate at different times), grizzle bear and polar bear likewise (will happen more often as polar bears migrate south from the melting ice caps). Even humans interbred in the history of our species with different species of humans (most notably Neanderthals).

I think the both terms are correct, but I like races better because species also includes every lifeform which can never be characters, like ravens, wargs or even tobacco plants.

Just like donkeys and horses then?

Donkeys and horses produce infertile mules. Elves and humans produce fertile offspring. Aragorn has elvish ancestors.

In the Dark Sun setting from AD&D, the offspring of humans and dwarves are also infertile. Also called muls, which isn't the most creative move but hey.

I don't recall there being any children of dwarves and men in the Tolkien legendarium, though I've not read it all by any means.

Given how common "interfertile but with sterile offspring" is between related species in nature, it's relatively rare in games and fantasy settings.

> Donkeys and horses produce infertile mules.

Usually.