So our taxonomy is inaccurate? And will always be so?  Taking that premise then,

why is there no central registry of some sort that would allow people to archive

the data key to their collection?  It seems a shame to see the work of a
lifetime lost because others either do not understand the importance of the data

lists or simply do not care.  If this data is so crucial to a well maintained
collection then it seems some sort of concerted effort needs to be undertaken to

preserve it for the future.  What is the point of data that  so frequently is
irretrievably lost?  Shouldn't we be looking at ways to preserve this work for
the future?

"Orstan, Aydin" wrote:

> >Although there is work involved in relabeling when the taxanomic names
> change, isn't
> >this work that should be done anyway in order to maintain the accuracy of
> the
> >collection?
>
> Not necessarily, because "accuracy" is relative & likely to change. If you
> go thru the drawers of any museum, you will frequently come upon pieces of
> papers in the specimen trays with names on them disagreeing with the name of
> those specimens in the official catalogue. These are the notes placed there
> by "experts" who have disagreed with the names in the catalogue. (I am not
> deriding anybody here; I have done the same thing.) Here's an example of the
> difficulty & futility of maintaining up to date names in a catalogue. There
> is a common & well known edible land snail known to most people as Helix
> aspersa. But some taxonomists prefer to call it Cantareus aspersus, while
> others prefer Cornu aspersum & yet others would rather call it Cryptomphalus
> aspersus. This species was described in 1774! You would think that we would
> have agreed on a name by now. So, which name should we pick for our
> catalogue? Who cares? What really matters is that there be good location &
> collector data & date for a particular specimen.
>
> Aydin