TurboTaxonomy?

[Rodham E. Tulloss]

It persists at a nontrivial level in mycology, as an example.
Papers written without any reference to the literature are very common.
Endemic taxa of SE Asia (for example) are still named as varieties of
European taxa by European workers who have no knowledge of the last
20 years of progress in research on the Asian mycota.  DNA sequences
are published without any attempt to relate them to morphological
studies.

The literature contains major contributions in terms of type studies,
good examples of descriptions of new taxa, and monographic studies.  Still
nomenclatural mistakes resulting in invalid names, republication of species
with second or third or fourth....names, inadequate protologues, etc. Are
nearly as common as competently done work.  Perhaps more common.

A real gem is to take a species just described and redescribe it with a new
name (knowing that the first name has been published) and claim that (unpublished)
DNA sequences show a difference.  After several years one wonders where those
DNA sequences are.

Frankly, the situation that you raise for discussion is infuriatingly common
in mycology.

R. E. Tulloss

Research Assoc. (Hons.) The New York Botanical Garden.
URL for
Amanita Studies: http://pluto.njcc.com/~ret/amanita/mainaman.html
URL for on-line metrics: www.amanitabear.com