> Taxonomy is all about putting names to organisms which reflect ther
> accurate relationshiups. It absolutely rightly has nothing to do with
> endangeredness, amateurs' ideas of esthetics or the convenience of
> collectors. Therefore when new information comes along which
> indicates that an older name is the correct one to use, or that a
> species actually belongs elsewhere than its present placement, we
> must go along... IF the move is objective (and it sure ain't
> necessarily so).

Dear Andrew, I believe you are missing my point here. Regarding species
level names, your opinion simply is NOT true. Stability prevails. That's
what the new 1999 ICZN code, more than ever, is about.
Regarding genus level names, these remain strictly a matter of personal
opinion, you're either a lumper, or a splitter, and that's fine. However,
there are a few species (at least in malacology) that have an importance in
scientific literature well beyond that of taxonomic malacology alone. Think
of Dreissena polymorpha, Achatina fulica, Strombus gigas, Helix pomatia,
Partula spp. etc.
These are the kind of names that ought to be preserved too. In each case, a
change in specific epithet would be dreadful, but a transfer to another
genus would be equally problematic. That's why I think general usage (thus:
stability) should prevail in such cases as well.
Fortunately there is an elegant way out of this controversy: if one is of
the opinion that, for instance,  S. gigas should be Eustrombus g. or
Tricornis g., then one may use Eustrombus or Tricornis as a subgenus;
Strombus (Eustrombus) gigas. Then you have the best of both worlds.

Marien
www.mollus.nl