Last edited Thu May 3, 2012, 01:15 AM - Edit history (1)
and those who tend to divide them. These are known as "lumpers" and "splitters" respectively, and taxonomy tends to represent a negotiated (at times hotly negotiated) equilibrium between the two proclivities. By your hypothesis, "lumpers" would be commiting career suicide, which doesn't seem to be the case, TBOMK.
The fundamental distinction of species is that a group of organisms can interbreed and produce viable offspring, so there is a limit to how far splitting can be carried. When two similar populations are found in widely separated locations, the question arises as to whether they are two populations of the same species which are unable to interbreed at the moment due to geographical barriers, or whether they have drifted far apart enough genetically that they can no longer produce viable offspring. When the "species" are known to produce hybrids in the wild, it is reasonable to assign them to the same species, but place them in different subspecies. As a result, at least one of the species will suffer a name change. For example consider the closely related flickers. As new hybrids and subpopulations are discovered occasionally, the taxonomy is revised to reflect this, but it is often a contentious process.
ETA: Bear in mind that "lumpers" tend not to make the news. "New species of ***" is a headline reporters can write in their sleep (and some probably do). The years of debate over taxonomic classification of these "new species" -- some of which may be determined not to be new -- don't get comparable coverage.
= new reply since forum marked as read