I'd expect that kind of rhetoric from one of you lumpers. Seriously though, the more I learn about speciation, the more I realize how imperfect our system is a

I'd expect that kind of rhetoric from one of you lumpers. Seriously though, the more I learn about speciation, the more I realize how imperfect our system is at categorizing life. Obviously lots of cases are pretty clear-cut, but there's so many examples where you almost have to treat every population as its own distinct entity. My definition of species honestly changes depending on the context. For conservation efforts, if you don't look at the separation and genetic distinctness between populations which would happily interbreed if it weren't for geographical restraints, you're liable to lose both genetic diversity and location-specific genetic adaptations that may be present in one population. For human evolution, I don't know what it really matters whether we call it one species or twelve. It's a very artificial system that will never be 100% agreed upon by experts. Being hominid fossils, they'll be studied intently down to the tiniest sliver of bone no matter where they're placed taxonomically. We all like nice, neat categories, but life is much messier than our naming system wants it to be and I'm not sure I really care where we draw these lines. If I'm missing a good reason for it, please educate me.