In addressing questions posed by Marcus and Nagel, the authors call attention to the variegated nature of psychopathy, highlighting its symptom subdimensions and differing manifest expressions (variants/subtypes). They discuss how the constructs of the triarchic model can be viewed both as phenotypic characteristics and as biobehavioral dispositions, and consider how these alternative perspectives can be helpful for clarifying what psychopathy “is” and “how” it develops. In responding to Lynam, they consider the sources of his criticisms as well as their content – focusing in particular on his preference for the five-factor trait model (FFM) as a descriptive framework, and the priority he places on psychopathy in its aggressive-criminal form. The authors discuss how the triarchic model complements the FFM descriptive approach through its emphasis on biobehavioral systems/processes and its ability to account for other variants of psychopathy.