Dear Pete, dear all.
Let us assume that an author X described a population of a species as a new taxon in accordance with the ICZN and with evidence. Evidence means diagnostic characters or divergent character states. Such a description is not only a a new name but a hypothesis. If so then another author Y (who do not agree) is in need to false (falsifying) the evidence and to present an alternative hypothesis based on its own evidence.
One could think that the 'community' would select now the 'better' hypothesis which is based on more convincing evidences, but it is not that easy. Ideally science is an evolving process where the 'better' hypothesis survive the struggle (1). However, it is often not the case. Usually the opinion of the 'putative' authority is followed by the majority. Whether the evidences are more convincing or not. And more worst, it is not seldom that the 'authority' suppressed opposite views during the peer-review process or discredited the journal where alternative hypotheses are published. Some of the 'established authorities' (or clique) are not even afraid to insult authors of opposite views. Such unfortunate habit prevents the development to scientific and convincing hypothesis. The philosopher of science Ludwik Fleck (2) described how such clique protect their views: ''(i) a contradiction to the system appears unthinkable; (ii) what does not fit into the system remains unseen; (iii) alternatively, if it is noticed, either it is kept secret''. See also Mayr (3).
Well, how Philippe mentioned above you are in need to make your own point of view. Which evidences are more convincing for you.
Few indications (
) for poor response to contradictions are: (i) a long list of authors but no proof that the evidences which support the contrary view are false; (ii) statements that the contrary view was published in a poor journal; (iii) statements like 'how could such a paper pass the peer-review'; (iv) the author of the contrary view is personally attacked.
(1)Popper: The Logic of Scientific Discovery.
(2)Fleck: Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact.
(3)Mayr: This Is Biology. ''Some factors that work against acceptance of new ideas are not strictly scientific. Perhaps one author was disliked or had even offended the current Establishment, while another had unexpected success with a subsequently refuted theory because he belonged to a powerful clique.''