Data from: 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 bovid taxonomy of G&G and discuss their treatment in C&A.

近期（Heller等，2013；下称H&A），我们针对一项牛科分类学修订研究发表了评述，该研究提出将公认物种数量翻倍的分类方案（Groves与Grubb，2011；下称G&G）。随后Cotterill等人（2014；下称C&A）的回应文章存在多处误解，且未对我们原文中提出的诸多批评作出回应，反而将讨论重心放在物种本体论与分类学史层面。C&A强烈反对表征分类学、形态种概念与分类保守主义，还错误地将一些我们并未持有的观点归为我们的主张，因此混淆了双方分歧的实质。这些误解促使我们澄清在若干核心议题上的立场，以免被不当曲解。但更严重的是，C&A未回应也未承认我们提出的若干关键实际关切，尤其是其鉴别性系统发育物种概念（diagnostic phylogenetic species concept，dPSC）所带来的分类膨胀风险（Isaac与Mace，2004）。本文在此重申我们针对G&G提出的牛科分类方案的若干担忧，并就C&A对这些担忧的回应展开讨论。