Herein we reply to the commentary of Cowman et al. on our Review of Coral Taxonomy, Evolution, and Diversity. We demonstrate that many of their central criticisms are mischaracterisations, contain factual errors, or extend beyond the evidentiary scope of available molecular datasets. Our Review did not dismiss the legitimacy or importance of molecular approaches, nor the value of integrative taxonomy. Rather, it emphasised the evidentiary thresholds required for formal species-level revision in morphologically variable and geographically widespread coral taxa. Genetic differentiation should not, without comprehensive sampling and contextualisation, be treated as sufficient grounds for immediate species-level restructuring. We reiterate that the concept of reticulate evolution in corals is supported by a growing body of molecular and other evidence. Furthermore, the “biological entities” discussed in our Review are not subjective impressions or non-reproducible opinions but are empirically documented, repeatedly recognisable, and diagnosable, characterised by coherent suites of morphological, ecological and geographic traits. These constitute structured, testable species hypotheses within an integrative framework. Our Reply addresses issues of field variability, type specimens, sampling design, molecular and morphological incongruence, and the taxonomic and conservation implications of premature rank assignment. Where multiple, independent lines of evidence converge, taxonomic revision is warranted; where sampling remains limited, geographically restricted, or analytically unstable, and where different lines of evidence conflict, nomenclatural stability and biological coherence are better served by restraint.
Veron et al. (Fri,) studied this question.