[contingo]

It's a bit dated to characterize modern systematics as chiefly a battle between lumpers and splitters; the structures and schema being argued over are different in character from those that preoccupied Victorian naturalists.

For some groups of extant organisms, there are still competing species concepts in operation, extensive genetic sampling is not always performed (although it was in this orangutan study), and other sources of evidence are relied upon. Also, our existing Codes of Nomenclature technically permit the kind of "taxonomic vandalism" practiced by rogue taxonomists like Raymond Hoser.

In these cases (I can think of examples in many groups in all the eukaryote kingdoms) you get more lumpy and more splitty approaches (an oversimplification that pained me to type). And you certainly get that when it comes to higher-than-species-level taxa. So it's just not true to say that basically everyone is now a splitter.

In phylogenetic terms, a species concept is supposed to define an independently evolving genetic cluster. These things exist in reality - we don't observe a continuum of extant forms in nature - and the quest to delineate these clusters objectively has necessarily become a statistical quest. As much as possible we want to map classification to real units of diversity.

In the case of us mammals there's a broad consensus on long-established criteria for performing this mapping, although individual cases are not always without contention. But the idea that modern biology fails, for ideological reasons, to correctly split classification into further species in the singular case of Homo sapiens, is silly.