After the dawn of the traditional, essentialist view of natural kinds in contemporary philosophy (exacerbated in philosophy of biology by ?population thinking?), non-essentialist cluster conceptions of natural kinds have been extensively supported and applied to numerous biological categories. However, salient philosophers have put forward two challenging arguments against cluster kind theories. I argue that, in both cases, discontent with a cluster conception of natural kinds is motivated by tacit and previous assumptions that can be challenged. I conclude that the concerns expressed in the objections do not make good reasons to resist natural kinds talk in biology unless one is willing to share such commitments and assumptions with respect to natural kinds. Ultimately, the discussion can be used to point out that our very expectations regarding natural kinds theories could use a rethink. Keywords: natural kinds, essentialism, cluster kinds, Boyd, mechanisms.