[Taxacom] Rocket science, not?

[Mary Barkworth]

I do not object to registration per se. It was the bureaucracy proposed
that bothered me, plus it also seemed to offer too much opportunity for
censorship by the recognized authority or institution (which might also
happen with a national node). Unfortunately it was killed so fast I did
not get back from the herbarium in time to vote. I admit that one reason
for my commenting on a national node effort was partly the discovery
yesterday of some grass names that I was unaware of in an article
published several years ago in China - and the names are not in either
IPNI or TROPICOS. My suggestion of a national (or regional node) was
partly a feeling that in some countries there might be a feeling that
they want to be seen as (and feel as) the keepers of the information
about their own organisms.  So long as the information is shared, it is
good. I just checked ITIS, the official source of taxonomy and names for
GBIF, for the name and it is (sorry guys) pathetic for the genus
concerned. Whether it is because whoever makes the decisions does not
recognize Pseudoroegneria or because it is too much for the
infrastructure available to GBIF is not clear. My guess is that keeping
track of all names is far too big a task. I hope that GBIF will work
more closely with groups like those who organize MycoBank. It sounds
like there is movement towards integration of resources - and
facilitating such integration. That is good, very good. And yes, the
plant people should get on board with the concept of registration.
Mary