A review by Peterson (2006) claims that a new species-level taxonomy leads to improved conservation insights for Philippine birds. However, it does not report how borderline taxonomic cases were dealt with, how many taxa and specimens were examined, how closely the evaluations were made, why four key museums were omitted from the survey, and why certain taxa were omitted despite their presence in museums visited. It provides no conclusive or accurate diagnoses in more than 40% of taxa on the first two pages of the Appendix, and overlooks another 16% that have already achieved species-level recognition. It unjustifiably asserts that work was hampered by lack of material, and inappropriately calls for the collection of a highly threatened taxon. It employs one unstable diagnostic method but preaches the virtue of another, entirely different but equally unstable. All these shortcomings undermine confidence in the paper's rigour; and reference to the recent conservation literature shows that in any case no new conservation insights have resulted.