Indeed, in the list of species on HoH:S p.61 Species there are only the mundane species listed.
Theories about the working of the several different kinds of Second Sight and Faerie Sight, that a magus or hedge wizard comes up with, will either have to posit further kind(s) of species, or other mechanisms altogether. Tmk ArM5 keeps quiet about this, and leaves any such theories and their respective worth to the troupe.
Cheers
The text you recalled is:
Comparing "see in the dark" with the other examples in the same guideline, it appears to refer to normal darkness at night, not absolute darkness like in a deep unlighted cave. ArM5 core rules are brief, and require consideration of their context.
MoH's See in Darkness is a Virtue, not a spell guideline or effect:
Compare this with:
So even "complete darkness" in ArM5 can mean "darkness or semi-darkness, such as in deep woods or at night", not absolute darkness without any iconic species around.
Cheers
That really seems to say "darkness" = "complete darkness" from what you're saying, but not that it doesn't equal "absolute darkness." After all, Strong Faerie Blood does not allow sight in "complete darkness," just up to "darkness." But See in Darkness allows "complete darkness" and says is it much the same. Meanwhile, what is the difference between "complete darkness" and "absolute darkness"? I would be hard pressed to state a difference. If it's not absolutely dark, then we're saying there is some light, so then it is not completely dark, and vice versa. I expect it is pretty well accepted that "complete darkness" = "absolute darkness." I really don't see how you start from the standpoint of "complete darkness" =/= "absolute darkness" to show "darkness" = "complete darkness" =/= "absolute darkness." It would seem there is more doubt in "much the same" and identifying "darkness" = "complete darkness" than with the other part.
The different types of 'dark' in ArM are not technical terms defined in a glossary, author's 'bible' or basic textbook any student has to refer to.
ArM5 is from 2004, MoH from 2009. And Pitt Murrmann, the inventor of Tolides, has tmk otherwise not appeared as an ArM author. We have to accept, that Pitt Murrmann calls something "complete darkness" and explains if by reference to "as in deep woods or at night". Trying to differentiate meanings by tracking such minute differences in wording over years and authors is bound to fail not only for RPGs, but also for any discipline, whose publications are not tied to exclusive use of strictly defined terms in every significant statement, and refereed accordingly.
Cheers
Your reading of Strong Faerie Blood is off. There is no reason that "as in deep woods or at night" must refer to anything other than "semi-darkness." "Darkness" is not tied to that statement unless you choose to read that "darkness" and "semi-darkness" describe the same thing, in which case specifying both of them is pointless. Thus "complete darkness" can refer to "darkness" and not at all to "as in deep woods or at night." So, no, "complete darkness" is not explained that way.
It doesn't make any sense to read the phrase
as explaining semi-darkness, but not darkness with "as in deep woods or at night". After all, the reader needs to know what a character with Strong Faerie Blood can see, not what semi-darkness might be.
Looking with such methods for problems in texts, you can be assured to find some. It's an other issue, whether somebody then cares for the finds.
Cheers
Keep in mind that as much as it hurts the mind, medieval concepts of visual species do not behave as, and are not synonymous with light. There is no good explanation for it any more than there is a good explanation for phrenology. It is entirely possible that there are species which have been rendered non-visible, and which those with second sight can still see. Similarly the idea of species being blocked or not blocked simply never entered into their model of how they worked, because there were clear things such as glass but no invisible things, and the model was simply not that sophisticated. My suggestion is to let the spell guidelines stand and accept that the model of species is simply the best model they have, not gospel truth.
+10 
For a quick impression of the role of sensible species in scholastics see in the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... val_Europe ) or acustics on, but to model human understanding.
But Robert Grosseteste (nature.com/news/history-a-me ... E-20140313 ) used the Aristotelian scholastic terminology in his optics, for far more sophisticated results than just iconic species being blocked by bodies.
ArM5 does neither require players to read Aquinas or Grosseteste, nor does it claim to faithfully represent scholastic thought.
The game concepts for perception and illusion it builds around the term 'species' and the concept 'sensible species' do not encompass supernatural senses like Second Sight and Sense Holiness and Unholiness: likely because such senses were not posited or described by the scholastic authors. How to explain occurrence and working of such senses in detail is left to the troupes.
Cheers
Actually the other way around:
By your reading, it could have been written "you can see normally in darkness, such as in deep woods or at night" with no change of meaning whatsoever. What does this mean? It means the author completely unnecessarily added the meaningless "or semi-darkness" which does nothing more than possibly add confusion. Why would an author do that?
By my reading, we hit "darkness or semi-darkness" and wonder 'what is semi-darkness?' Why do we wonder that? Because "semi-darkness" really has no good meaning normally. Even "darkness" isn't so well defined: a partial or total absence of light. That is because a partial absence is a partial presence. And just what is complete presence of light? Are we saying a normal person cannot see in the shade of a tree at high noon in the summer? Clearly not. So what are we to do with these terms? "Darkness" is only well defined if it no light whatsoever. Handily, this also then gives meaning to the otherwise meaningless "semi-darkness." But we still potentially have the tree shade problem. How little light is needed for "semi-darkness." Handily, there is a description attached immediately after "semi-darkness," that being "such as in deep woods or at night." So now we also know just how little light we're considering with "semi-darkness": little enough light that a typical person would make out some contours but would have a lot of difficulty without a source of light. Now every bit of the sentence has a purpose and becomes much clearer. Yay.
Second point: internal consistency. It makes no sense at all for "darkness" to be the kind of lighting for nocturnal animals, while it makes sense for "semi-darkness." Why? Eyes of the Cat. Eyes of the Cat doesn't let you see in "darkness." It lets you see in "near darkness." Again, this would be a meaningless "near" just like "semi-darkness" unless "darkness" is no light at all. Also, if at night is only "near darkness," then it's not yet to "darkness." Thus "at night" is insufficiently lacking light to be considered "darkness" for consistency in the core book.
Third point: this is an RPG. What is the general lingo in RPGs? Usually things like "Darkvision" and "See in Darkness" refer to seeing with a complete lack of light while "Nightvision" and
"Low-Light Vision" and similar refer to seeing at night or in similarly low-light settings. So an author should expect this interpretation of "dark" or "darkness," that it is a complete lack of light, from many readers.
Fourth point: See in Darkness. This allows vision in "complete darkness," just like Strong Faerie Blood. The only way for darkness to be complete is no light whatsoever. So something in Strong Faerie Blood should be indicating no light whatsoever. That fits what I have written above about "darkness" versus "semi-darkness."
I'm not saying it's written clearly, but there is a huge amount of consistency in the writing if "darkness" is meant as a complete lack of light and "semi-darkness" "as in deep woods or at night." Going the other way requires a lack of consistency and the assumption that the author who wrote the very term "semi-darkness" put it in for no reason except possibly to add confusion.
That's what I was getting at. I can't find a way for the model to fit the rules without contradiction of some sort, so the species model must be somehow lacking.
The author uses a figure of speech, which most people should have encountered latest in the local equivalent of junior high: a - very lightweight - chiasmus (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiasmus).
I'll explain. You encounter darkness at night. And semi-darkness in deep woods. And with Strong Faerie Blood,
So the text states, that both in darkness and semi-darkness, intended as different conditions of lighting that can hamper vision, you can see normally. And since darkness and semi-darkness are otherwise unexplained words, the text provides typical examples for both. Finally, it uses a chiasmus to closely bind together the two examples and the words 'darkness' and 'semi-darkness', and to describe the enhanced vision, which Strong Faerie Blood provides, as a single effect.
Cheers