Outdated and overly lumped alpha taxonomy among the world's island birds has serious consequences for scientific research and conservation. The underestimation of biodiversity on islands obscures their role as speciation laboratories, distorts sampling in genetic studies, biases research planning, leads to neglect of endangered island species mistakenly classified as subspecies, and reduces potentially valuable information that might be gathered by recreational birders. Suggestions such as abandoning the biological species concept and the subspecies category in favor of the phylogenetic species concept create new problems and disrupt widely understood terminology. I review avian taxonomic history in the hawaiian Islands, speciation patterns in Pacific island pigeons and doves, and patterns of variation in the widespread Polynesian Starling (Aplonis tabuensis) to demonstrate that the biological species concept, if applied with consideration of potential isolating mechanisms, vagility, and degree of geographic isolation, along with the judicious use of subspecies, produces hypotheses of island biodiversity that meet research and conservation needs. I suggest a thought process for evaluating biological species limits in island birds that is less subjective and more repeatable than previous methods, and use the Fiji Shrikebill (Clytorhynchus vitiensis) as a working example. A review of taxonomic history in the Bridled White-eye (Zosterops conspicillatus) complex in Micronesia shows that while genetic data are useful for testing hypotheses of species limits based on other data, alone they are insufficient for the purpose and should not be considered essential in species revisions.