his clades may in fact have some validity . . . certainly, based on the DNA data that he used they do (how many genes did he examine???). however, work by Wiens & Reeder, for example, has demonstrated that a combined molecular and morphological (i.e. whole organism data set) approach is better at revealing true pattern of relationships (phylogenies are hypotheses of these patterns). so, on his clades, i'll reserve my opinions until more data is forthcoming. however, his "species" are (as i've said before) nonsense.