While this distinction into artificial and natural classifications seems entirely intuitive, recent emphasis on the theory-ladenness of observation by philosophers and taxonomists alike has called Mill's and Whewell's distinction into question. I think this is misconceived.
All classifications are the result of artifice, convention, and technique.
Ants, for example, do not present themselves to us neatly sorted into natural species or genera distinct from other arthropods for naming on the basis of unequivocal observation. We observe, recognise, sort and settle on a grouping and naming convention. I will call these alternatives the continuum view , the partition view and the subset view respectively. According to this view, the aim of a scientific classification is to maximise the naturalness of classifications while retaining the conventional usefulness required to implement them in practice. Generality is bought at the expense of accuracy.