This is something I "discuss" with taxonomists, both botanical and zoological, regularly. The whole taxonomic system started at a time when there was no concept of natural selection, adaptation, and the evolution of new species, but rather than redesigning it back when it became clear how unsuitable it was, and when it should have been done, people keep slapping patches on it and we have the current mess as a result. Clearly I have strong opinions and I'll try to keep this to a few useful points (and, I hope, below "rant" level). As Leo said, any *validly published* previous binomial combination for a species is still valid - once used, with rare exceptions, names can't be reused, because that would cause even more confusion (if that's possible). So I can still validly refer to my beloved Oeceoclades that way, even though the "currently accepted" name is Eulophia. Note the validly published - it's not enough that it was in common use, even by botanists, it has to also have been published and the publication has to meet the requirements of the ICN. There are many names which were commonly used for a long time, but for one reason or another weren't validly published. You'll often see these in taxonomic authorities as "nomen nudum", "nomen invalidum", or "nomen illegitimum", and usually, having been given this status, they cannot ever then be published and become valid; they go on the scrap heap. (Usually, because if enough taxonomists vote for an exception nearly anything can happen.) Unfortunately, there are catches. One that directly concerns us is that some regulatory groups (customs, endangered species, etc.) have determined that they'll use the most current validly published name. Even if most of the specialist taxonomists working on that group aren't convinced it's valid, they'll use it until some other taxonomist (validly) publishes another paper restoring the previous name to "currently accepted". Being regulatory groups, even if they try, they often don't use the "right" name, but it means if we're doing an import we might - or might not - get flagged because we listed something under the wrong name. The people doing the inspections aren't stupid, they know names change, and often they'll do what we would - Google the offending name, see that it's the same as this other name they have on their list, and go on. Sometimes, depending on the person and how their day has gone, they won't. As far as the Wiki ... since I haven't yet done any work on it, I'm in the position of the diner telling the chef how to cook. But I frequently see that our tireless editors have already noted for many genera and species something like "this other name has been published but is not yet in common use" and I think that's the right way to handle it. Let people know first that there's still confusion about the name, let them know what other names they might see it as, but don't spend a lot of time on it. Lumping vs. splitting. I have strong feelings about that too, but having seen the chaos up close in the orchid world, I understand where the lumpers are coming from, and why they're doing that. But that's a subject for a different post. And maybe only taxonomy geeks would care. Steve On 3/5/2025 10:01 AM, oooOIOooo via pbs wrote: > The question becomes whether the Wiki is intended to be an authoritative taxonomic resource. I don't think many PBS members view it that way. It's mainly a gardening resource. > > Three professional botanists have told me previously accepted binomials remain valid even when other botanists provide newer names based on newer data; the old binomials were carefully considered and accepted by the taxonomic community; the newer binomials might not become accepted; and only professional botanists need to be concerned with current taxonomy. They said using older binomials is fine for amateurs because we can't be expected to keep up with taxonomic literature, but botanists are expected to. > > It becomes very confusing for novice gardeners to look up information on plants based on names on labels. The name on the label might be old, or new. Many common houseplants have been renamed. Wikipedia and many professional botanical sites no longer include older synonyms on many or most plant listings. It's like the ancient Egyptians, erasing the cartouches with names of disfavored Pharaohs. Other Web sites, and books, contain older binomials. > > I might suggest keeping the Wiki names as they are. A disclosure could be put on the main photographs page stating the site is not intended to be current on taxonomy, because there are not enough volunteers to do this. When people do have time to update Wiki listings, I would recommend the full older binomial remain there as a synonym. > > I had hoped to have more time in retirement to help with the Wiki. It turns out I'm still in the post-retirement period of even more, noncompensated work. > > Leo Martin > Phoenix Arizona USA > Zone 9? > _______________________________________________ > pbs mailing list > pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net > https://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/… > Unsubscribe: <mailto:pbs-unsubscribe@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> > PBS Forum https://… _______________________________________________ pbs mailing list pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net https://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/… Unsubscribe: <mailto:pbs-unsubscribe@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> PBS Forum https://…