Abstract In the face of rapid biodiversity loss, attention has been increasingly focused on the application of maps towards the challenges of protecting biodiversity. However, biodiversity maps can lead, or have led us into, errors since they are too often not questioned by ecologists, who perceive them as an objective and legitimate representation of the natural world. The aim of this paper is to acknowledge and question our assumptions of (biodiversity) mapping for conservation through an epistemic approach. Discussing two dominant metaphors explaining those cognitive processes involved in mapping and the conventional nature of maps supported by the wide cartographic diversity adopted by human societies, I will stress the need to leave behind the belief of an objective approach for biodiversity mapping and conservation goals as opposed to an alternative mapping approach ― providing viable alternatives to mitigate or face rapid biodiversity loss in a more “systemic” way. This paper illustrates how biodiversity maps (even though based on up-to-date scientific assumptions), far from being objective and a neutral transcription of nature, are inevitably affected by personal constructions, dominant culture, and sometimes ignorance, or scientific blindness. As a result, it is important to strive and rate maps — not only in terms of scientific accuracy, but also on their “viability” — which is their range of application and how successful they are in achieving the aims for which they are drawn.