Y'a know I would have thought this was an OK question to ask to have answered but now in reading some of the letters to Journals' SIENCE and NATURE about the chaning face of taxonomists on the use and development of computers and taxonomy (raison de etre of web site TAXACOM (taxonomy &computers)) MY OPINION that caused me to be booted off the discussion has made print in a respectable place and not by me and developements possible that even my ostensibly illegible biology proposes has not occurred and WAS recognized as able to be done and not to the extreme that some rightly also WISH enabled (free exhange of data).
So, Taxonomists HAVE not been able to give up on the monteary vaule of a name for the progress of the field and it makes non-sense on my 2nd opinion to ask about a NUMBER of species names for the ark when the scientists are not willing to use the larger pollent net .millions of storge places to sort out disambiguities etc to help bring about a more sustainable economy. National interests are too tied NOW to the golbalization which did not exist when the sanity of these kinds of questions were begining to become recognized as legit.
They are not. Even by the actual (non Brad) scientists themselves. I vote to table this "discussion". But I am almost quite litteraly only "one" vote here. So I doubt I would win the tail end even of this thread.
It is a sorry state when we have the ability but we would rather committ the student who wants to rename Coulbrids to the Garden of out of Eden than make the apple apply for some creature took out of Africa.
™ Version 4.2