You are wrong in thinking that I “condemn” the museum taxonomy. I condemn it to be the only method, sufficient for describing new soecies of Paros scientifically. That means quite some restrictions: They could perhaps be suffient today for some organisms, even fish, that had not been detected and described before. Even birds. But in most cases that are relevant today it is entirely insufficent. And this is the case with Paros who only can be distinguished by slight differences in structure and colouring. Yes, even slight structural differences may occur and not indicate a species difference. May, not more.
You condemn, namely my way of speaking, I do not. The way I spoke was short for “entirely insufficient for describing new species of Paros in cases where only slight differences in structure and colouring are to be seen at the phenotypes”. Let alone the dead phenotypes.
All we know hitherto is that Parosphromenus is a highly variable genus still in heavy development at the present day. The new taxonomics that is used in birds for instance knows semispecies for instance, but uses has genetic informations in the background. Even the old concept of a subspecies is not used in Kottelat’s world, too. But he can’t, I admit, not using living fish, their behaviour, genetics. And that is not enough, I am sorry.