I second Jensen's comment

[Jacques Rifkind]

Harvey Ballard writes (in part):
> Until
such time as a universal standardized Code for botanical, zoological and
other names is fully worked out AND voted on AND distributed and supported
>in its use, abandoning currently available usage as defined by the ICBN or
other works is simply a big step backward and, in my mind, devalues the
>worth of the project using such an "anarchist" approach.

Actually,  scientists organized within various independent institutions and
around various independent peer reviewed journals who voluntarily subscribe
and adhere to the decisions of an ad hoc governing body (the various
commissions on nomenclature) constitute anarchy in its most essential form.
Authority here is ceded voluntarily and decisions are reached mutually via a
very open process of suggestion and debate (reflected in the slow process of
rule appeal and revision). This is democratic and "organic" organization at
its finest. The only sanction that the various "members" have is to ignore or
discount publications that refuse to conform with agreed upon practice (as
Ballard has pointed out). This has proved a very effective means of
maintaining standards and uniformity--all without the necessity of an
entrenched, centralized,  bureaucratic, arbitrary power (governmental or
private). Long live anarchy.

Sincerely,

Franz Rugose