Recently (Heller et al. 2013; H&A), we commented on a revision of the bovid taxonomy, which proposes a doubling in the number of recognized species (Groves and Grubb 2011; G&G). The subsequent response by Cotterill et al. (2014; C&A) contains a number of misunderstandings and leaves much of the critique voiced in our paper unanswered, focusing instead on species ontologies and taxonomic history. C&A argue strongly against phenetics, morphospecies and taxonomic conservatism, ascribing us views that we do not hold and hence confusing the substance of our disagreement. These misconceptions oblige us to clarify our views on certain key issues to avoid being misrepresented. More seriously, however, the authors fail to respond to, or acknowledge, some of our crucial practical concerns, notably the risk of taxonomic inflation (Isaac & Mace 2004) posed by their diagnostic phylogenetic species concept (dPSC). Here we restate a number of our concerns regarding the proposed bovid taxonomy of G&G and discuss their treatment in C&A.