Is diagnosability an indicator of speciation? Response to ‘Why one century of phenetics is enough’

Recently (Heller et al. 2013; H&A), we commented on a revision of the bovid taxonomy, which proposes a doubling in the number of recognized species (Groves and Grubb 2011; G&G). The subsequent response by Cotterill et al. (2014; C&A) contains a number of misunderstandings and leaves much of the critique voiced in our paper unanswered, focusing instead on species ontologies and taxonomic history. C&A argue strongly against phenetics, morphospecies and taxonomic conservatism, ascribing us views that we do not hold and hence confusing the substance of our disagreement. These misconceptions oblige us to clarify our views on certain key issues to avoid being misrepresented. More seriously, however, the authors fail to respond to, or acknowledge, some of our crucial practical concerns, notably the risk of taxonomic inflation (Isaac & Mace 2004) posed by their diagnostic phylogenetic species concept (dPSC). Here we restate a number of our concerns regarding the proposed bov...

近期（Heller等，2013；H&A），我们针对牛科（bovid）分类学的一项修订发表了评论，该修订提议将已认可物种的数量增加一倍（Groves与Grubb，2011；G&G）。Cotterill等（2014；C&A）随后的回应存在诸多误解，且未回应用文中提出的大部分批评，反而将焦点放在物种本体论（species ontology）与分类学历史上。C&A强烈反对表征学（phenetics）、形态种（morphospecies）与分类保守主义，将我们并未持有的观点归诸于我们，从而混淆了双方分歧的实质。这些误解迫使我们澄清对若干关键问题的看法，以免被曲解。然而更严重的是，作者们未回应或认可我们提出的若干关键实际关切，尤其是其诊断性系统发育物种概念（diagnostic phylogenetic species concept，dPSC）所带来的分类膨胀（taxonomic inflation）风险（Isaac与Mace，2004）。在此，我们重申对拟议的牛科……相关的若干关切。