Registration (was: TurboTaxonomy?)

[Faunaplan at AOL.COM]

Thanks to Richard and Brian for helping me understand your arguments!
Since this is a repeated debate on "Registration", I also went back into the
TAXACOM archives and found that you both have already posted extensively on
these same issues (e.g., back in February 2003).

In this new round I especially liked the "kernel" and "layer" allegories in
Richard's response. Such an idea of a more complex system would allow for the
pre-requisite fundamental but neutral role of the Code and wouldn't preclude
anything. Instead, open up chances for pioneer work like the one in ichthyology.
Maybe the next (Bio?)Code could say something like "where Lists of
Available/validly published Names have been adopted, new names are available/validly
published only after they have been added; - i.e., as a first step,
"Registration" not as a general rule for ALL taxa (like in bacteriology), but a chance for
a learning-by-doing process where Ichthyologists, for instance, could play a
pioneer role...

As for Brian's response: The term "Taxonomic Status" appears, for example, on
the ITIS website in context with taxonomic judgment, so I just picked up your
words "flagging the status of a name". But I could have seen in your earlier
postings to TAXACOM that there is no reason to think that you are in favor of
a "kernel" Registration that includes a baggage of taxonomic judgment.
(And, as we all know, the term "valid" is a special stumbling stone for
unambiguous communication among biologists: a validly published name in zoology is
called an "available" name, but an available name in zoology is not
necessarily a valid name...).

Best regards,
Wolfgang

Wolfgang Lorenz, Tutzing, Germany