That's the basic issue with naming things in science.
"Electrons" are "electrons" not because they are fundamentally electron-like but because we choose to class certain evidenced phenomena as "electrons" because it's convenient for communication and predictive modeling. For some purposes "electrons" may be viewed as point-like Newtonian particles with such-and-such electromagnetic properties, for some purposes "electrons" may be viewed as particular excitations in the electron-field-component-of-the-standard-model with properties as side-effects of the definition. For some purposes, what are classified as "positrons" in Wikipedia may legitimately be called "electrons."
Likewise "Rabbits", "Life" and "E. coli". The evidence is what the evidence is -- the names are what we choose. Identifying new-but-related types of phenomena is a problem of classification which is fuzzy when the data is fuzzy and in many cases the data is fuzzy because the gathered evidence accurately reflects reality.
"Electrons" are "electrons" not because they are fundamentally electron-like but because we choose to class certain evidenced phenomena as "electrons" because it's convenient for communication and predictive modeling. For some purposes "electrons" may be viewed as point-like Newtonian particles with such-and-such electromagnetic properties, for some purposes "electrons" may be viewed as particular excitations in the electron-field-component-of-the-standard-model with properties as side-effects of the definition. For some purposes, what are classified as "positrons" in Wikipedia may legitimately be called "electrons."
Likewise "Rabbits", "Life" and "E. coli". The evidence is what the evidence is -- the names are what we choose. Identifying new-but-related types of phenomena is a problem of classification which is fuzzy when the data is fuzzy and in many cases the data is fuzzy because the gathered evidence accurately reflects reality.