The species problem is the longstanding puzzle concerning the nature of the species category or how to correctly define "species." Many philosophers, as well as biologists, have attributed the recalcitrant nature of the species problem to the gap between the essentialistic nature of the species concept, on the one hand, and the vague boundaries of actual species, on the other. In this paper I will examine two possible readings of this account. On the first reading, the gap comes from the lack of non-essentialistic definitions of "species." The second reading suggests that the gap comes from biologists' psychological disposition to hold essentialistic conception of species, even when non-essentialistic definitions are available to them. Then I will argue that evidence favors the second reading over the first.