>So our taxonomy is inaccurate? And will always be so?

I would rather say taxonomy is accurate with a margin or error. To identify
a species one compares the shell & if available, the anatomy of the animal
with the literature information, previously identified museum specimens,
which may include the type. Then one concludes that, based on all of this
comparison, the specimen in hand is such & such species. But this conclusion
may or may not be 100% accurate. The uncertainty arises because you may have
overlooked one little anatomical or conchological detail, or the literature
you relied on may be inaccurate or incomplete, or the museum specimens may
be misidentified, etc. On top of this there is the expected variation; no 2
specimens of a species are alike. Where does one species end & another
begin? Where one taxonomist sees a highly variable species, another
taxonomist may see 2 separate but very closely related species. Sometimes it
takes a while to decide who is right.

My guess is that this state of affairs will continue into the foreseeable
near future.

If everything was absolutely definite & clear-cut, it wouldn't be this much
fun, would it?


>why is there no central registry of some sort that would allow
>people to archive the data key to their collection?

If you donate your collection or any part of it to a museum you should also
give them all the relevant data. If the museum decides to keep your donation
& catalogues it, they will/should keep the data as well. Of course, the data
could get lost or destroyed, but that could happen in your house too.

Aydin