I feel like it’s worth pointing out that these critiques aren’t new… From this article I found on the “lumpers and splitters” Wiki page:
We shall perhaps be severely censured for cutting down species. We have all along considered it as trifling with nature to separate species on slight or variable grounds, nor could we ever understand the ‘cui bono’ for which so much ingenuity in splitting hairs has been wasted.
^ from 1834
those botanists who labour under the ‘species-splitting’ monomania.
1845
… splitters make very small units – their critics say that if they can tell two animals apart, they place them in different genera … and if they cannot tell them apart, they place them in different species. … Lumpers make large units – their critics say that if a carnivore is neither a dog nor a bear, they call it a cat.
1945, from the Wiki article
And more recently, a couple papers arguing that the transition from the Biological Species Concept to the Phylogenetic Species Concept has resulted in “taxonomic inflation” (AKA excessive splitting) which they argue is detrimental for macroecology and conservation:
- Taxonomic inflation: its influence on macroecology and conservation - ScienceDirect
- Species inflation and taxonomic artefacts—A critical comment on recent trends in mammalian classification - ScienceDirect
Clearly the Phylogenetic Species Concept has huge appeal though, so it’s worth thinking about why that is in order to argue against it.