What's a subspecies was: Species Concept Question

[Ken Kinman]

Rich wrote:
    Actually, C. flavissima (Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1831) has nomenclatural priority over C. vrolikii (Bleeker, 1853); so the species epithet for both would be "flavissima".
*******************************************************
Hi Rich,
      I stand corrected.  And although the vrolikii population is less numerous than the flavissima population, I assume that it is only uncommon (not threatened or endangered), so I still think the 2 subspecies solution would be best.
      I would be interested to know why you chose to continue recognizing them as two separate species.  Although the change would have raised some eyebrows or even some protests, I still don't think it would have been that destabilizing.  Although I do understand the temptation to follow historical "inertia"/"bias" in the interests of stability, new information does require some level of instability (but I believe the subspecies designation would minimize instability and/or confusion in this case).
      Also, I would be very interested to know what species (or species group) is thought be most closely related to the flavissima-vrolikii group (whether or not the latter is regarded as two species or one).
                 ---- Cheers,
                           Ken Kinman