[Taxacom] Honest question

[Sergio Henriques]

Dear all:

I missed earlier debates on the topic (I am aware of a "recent" nature news
<https://www.nature.com/news/taxonomy-anarchy-hampers-conservation-1.22064>
and the "Taxonomy based on science is necessary for global conservation
<https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2005075>"
response) but what happens when taxonomy isn't based on science?

Hypothetical example: If someone comes to a protected area on "vacation",
collects with no permits, gets a couple of specimens, self-publishes (no
peer review) a new species in genus "A" with 2 sp., instead of the genus
"B" with 200 sp. (where everyone can easily recognise it belongs to),
apparently to purposely bypass a cumbersome revision/explanation and avoid
justifying the validity of their description.
Then why do I now have to halt my peer review publication, have the burden
to revise further species in a non related genus A, accept their species
name, lose my chance to set the species epithet as an honorific, wasting
all the resources used to visit museums, collecting new material,  etc...
Just to publish a genus reassignment paper?
Off course my publication is still relevant, I made a key to both males and
females, spent endless hours on range mapping, validating or refuting
synonyms, etc..
But as a young taxonomist: Why do a proper revision at all? Why should I
publish my work in peer review journals and move our taxonomic knowledge of
the group further, when I feel like the field (ICZN) shows no support for
this sort of methodical work?

Apologies for turning this into a rant, but I believe I'm perhaps offering
a new angle on an already well known problem, which I would phase as:
Why should young biologists become taxonomist at all?
It's clearly not because of the money, nor because it's popular or provides
any sort of professional stability for our future. I think young
taxonomists do it because we care, both for the groups we study and for
carrying the legacy of previous workers onwards.
I know the role of the code isn't to police taxonomy but to provide a
framework of rules do it accurately, but shouldn't the rules support
accuracy in detriment of shoddy work?  What regulations are there in the
ICZN to protect young taxonomists work and incentivise
quality/accurate/comprehensive taxonomic work?

Honest question, I really want to know. Although I am also happy to hear
from those who think that encouraging quality taxonomic work and supporting
young taxonomists isn't something we need to do, or that it isn't something
ICZN should encourage.
I am aware of the Raymond Hoser
<https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/taxonomic-vandalism-and-hoser/>
issue,
the cyber nomenclaturalists and CESA itch
<http://216.92.145.68/zootaxa/2011/f/zt02933p064.pdf> and their "critics
<http://cerambycids.com/aazn/publications/Nemesio_2011.pdf>", as well as
ICZN position on it. But when facing a taxonomy crisis
<https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/systematics-and-taxonomy-in-crisis-house-of-lords-report/>,
I haven't read about the impact of bad taxonomy in disincentivising young
taxonomists and encouraging lower publication standards, and would welcome
your insights on this.

All the best
S.