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://…