And it is immediately followed despite the lack of credibility. It isn't as bad as "stealing" other scientists' work obviously, but the result can be the same and it can be detrimental for conservation.
That said, I would tend to argue that over-splitting of taxa is potentially less detrimental for conservation than over-lumping is.
Say one is discussing the hypothetical genus
Aaaaa, which is traditionally held to contain three species:
A. aaaa, A. bbbb and
A. cccc, the first of which is deemed to be Least Concern and the latter two of which are Vulnerable. These two species themselves contain a number of subspecies:
A. bbbb bbbb, which is Near Threatened,
A. bbbb dddd, which is Critically Endangered,
A. cccc cccc, which is Near Threatened and
A. cccc eeee, which is Critically Endangered.
However, lumpers and splitters hold vastly differing opinions on this genus: lumpers count the genus as monotypic, recognising only
Aaaaa aaaa as a single Least Concern species. Conversely the splitters not only recognise the three species, but elevate all subspecies too. This leads to three scenarios as far as conservation priority applies to this genus:
Traditional -
Aaaaa contains three species, of which two are deemed to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future and as such merit conservation efforts whilst the third is deemed not to merit such efforts.
Lumper -
Aaaaa contains a single species, which is not deemed to merit conservation efforts.
Splitter -
Aaaaa contains five species, of which two (
Aaaaa dddd and
Aaaaa eeee) are deemed to be facing a very high risk of imminent extinction in the wild, and two (
Aaaaa bbbb and
Aaaaa cccc) are deemed to potentially be at such a risk in the future; these four are therefore deemed to merit conservation efforts whilst the fifth (
Aaaaa aaaa) is not deemed to merit conservation efforts.
As such, over-umping carries more potential detriment than does over-splitting, as it holds the possibility of masking populations which are in imminent risk.
