Agreed, there are fundamental problems in this field. Many biologists for some reason will not accept that, when populations A and B are not sympatric, the proc

Agreed, there are fundamental problems in this field. Many biologists for some reason will not accept that, when populations A and B are not sympatric, the process of evolution does not offer any obvious definition of "belong to the same species" in the question "do A and B belong to the same species?" But it's very tricky. On the opposite side from the theoretical/philosophical considerations of what entities participating in the evolutionary process should have what names, there are extremely valid pragmatic considerations: if we are to save habitat and certain lineages then it's helpful to just agree on the damn name and get on with the difficult work of conservation biology which is conducted in the world of human politics, not the pages of a systematics journal. And in fact in many cases it will help the survival of a geographically isolated lineage to err in the direction of "splitting" it out as a separate species, regardless of pointy-headed academic considerations.