 Another methodological challenge for pluralist accounts of classificatory practice are the virtues of standardization in scientific practice. Ontological pluralism is often embedded in a wider critique of the metaphysical ideal of an absolute conception of the world. The move from ontology to classification, however, introduces further pragmatic considerations about standardization. Even steadfast ontological pluralists need to acknowledge that unified classificatory standards are often of pragmatic value in establishing common frameworks and terminologies (Sterner, Witteveen, &amp; Franz 2020). For example, debates about “taxonomic governance” are motivated by concerns that the disorder of species classifications affects negatively epistemic progress (Conix 2019) and ultimately reduces “the effectiveness of global efforts to halt biodiversity loss” (Garnett &amp; Christidis 2017: 26). However, attempts to standardize biological taxonomies (and scientific classifications more generally) also come at costs. One crucial benefit of taxonomic plurality is the ability to incorporate diverse epistemic and non-epistemic concerns that can drive different classificatory decisions. Governance of classificatory practices is therefore inevitably political by raising the question whose concerns are authoritative and how tensions are negotiated in the development of standards. One emerging area of research, for example, concerns the plurality of classificatory practices in cross-cultural perspective and the risk of marginalizing locally adapted classificatory practices through dominant standards from biological taxonomy (Robles-Piñeros et al. 2020) to psychiatry (Popa 2020).