I SO don't have time to engage on this (apologies to all who have sent me emails to which I have not yet responded), but as this is a topic that is near & dear to me, I can no longer resist. A few random comments:

Doug wrote:

Absolutely! But I'll take it a step further: the question: "Is name X presently treated as valid?" has no answer, as such. Without qualification of what is meant by "presently", and without some indication of by whom a name is treated as valid or not, this is a question that can only be answered in shades of gray (or spectra of RGB, if you prefer).

This relates to Chuck's comment:

I think the only realistic path forward for taxonomic professionals is a graphic representation of the history of how names are treated, along the lines of what Ryan Schenk has put together (http://synynyms.no.de/). For the non-taxonomist who wants a single answer, I think there are only two options:

1) select a specific "meta-authority" (e.g., Catalogue of Life) to represent the "whom".; or

2) Develop an "I'm Feeling Lucky" algorithm (analogous to Google's feature of the same name) that can essentially review a broad spectrum of criteria (how the name has been treated over time, influenced by various objective "quality" metrics related to the published works and authors of such, etc.) that effectively produces two results: a) The name that rises to the top of the "I'm Feeling Lucky" algorithm; and b) Some sort of confidence value that indicates whether the name is essentially stable and universal (e.g., Homo sapiens), or is the subject of recent and un-settled debate (many examples)

Richard Zander wrote:

I think the parenthetical should have been '("valid" for zoologists)' ... "valid" in botany is more akin to "available" in zoology (i.e., "validly published").

And further:

But only one of these questions has scope only in the context of human brains....the others are questions that exist outside the existence of humans. But maybe we'd best not go there....again....

Stephen wrote:

I don't think that Jim "just" wants this (index of existing taxonomic opinions). Rather, he (correctly!) recognizes that this is a critical component in the right direction, and one that is far more tractable informatically than most of the passionate debates that pass through this email forum.

This sounds a bit like a straw man. I've not yet met anyone who actually thinks that the most recent assertion about a taxon is, by default, the "correct" one.

YES!! This is the KEY point, I think, for this entire discussion. The trick is: how do we make the outside world understand (first) the importance of biodiversity, and (second) the importance good taxonomy within that realm?

And, saving the best for last....

Rod wrote:

YES! THANK YOU! This is *exactly* the point I have believed and (to a lesser extent) have been preaching for years now. My vision for the architecture of data components of GNA is, and has been, EXACTLY along these lines. I only hope it's feasible to implement (I already know it's feasible from a technical perspective; but it's not clear yet whether it will be feasible from a socio-political perspective...)

Aloha, Rich

This message is only intended for the addressee named above. Its contents may
be privileged or otherwise protected. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or
copying of this message or its contents is prohibited. If you have received
this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail or by
collect telephone call. Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not
necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List Taxa...@mailman.nhm.ku.edu http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
your search terms here