 While ontological pluralism has become widely endorsed in philosophy of science, pluralist perspectives take various forms. One area of disagreement is how far the case for ontological pluralism reaches. In the context of biological taxonomy (Ereshefsky 2000), for example, more moderate forms of pluralism only accept species taxa that are monophylectic (Mishler &amp; Donoghue 1982) while more radical pluralist proposals insist on the legitimacy of non-historical taxa (Kitcher 1984a) or even of non-academic kinds that divide the biological world along diverse non-historical (e.g., morphological, behavioral, ecological) and pragmatic (e.g., culinary, economic, medicinal, aesthetic) criteria (Dupré 1999; Magnus 2012). For example, more recent debates about indigenous ontologies push the boundaries of ontological pluralism by addressing ontologies that are shaped by epistemic and social concerns of local communities rather than the concerns of academically trained researchers (Kendig 2020; Ludwig &amp; Weiskopf 2019; Robles-Piñeros et al. 2020; Weiskopf 2020).