> There is a tendency in certain areas of biology to attribute extremely minor regional variation to new species.
The article describes pretty much the opposite of this, though - the species found have no regional variation, and even overlap majorly.
If the scientists involved in the paper cited by TFA have really found a large level of genetic diversity, I don’t see the point of arguing against their definition of species. It’s not a two way street, but sufficient genetic separation is enough to establish separate species, even ones indistinguishable to human eyes.
Sufficient genetic separation in the presence of range overlap. Otherwise you're just arguing about whether things are geographical races vs species, which can only be subjective. (Mayr and Haffer had it right)
The article describes pretty much the opposite of this, though - the species found have no regional variation, and even overlap majorly.
If the scientists involved in the paper cited by TFA have really found a large level of genetic diversity, I don’t see the point of arguing against their definition of species. It’s not a two way street, but sufficient genetic separation is enough to establish separate species, even ones indistinguishable to human eyes.