In fact terms are rather well standardized (e.g. the word "Valid"). However,
when people start using them in another snese as the standardized meaning,
e.g. since they just are to lazy to get themselves a copy of the Code, then
all confusion starts.
Concerning the other aspect, under (2), I fully concur with Allen when he
states:
"Along with that freedom comes the responsibility to be familiar with and
respect the rules that do govern the process, and not leave it to future
workers to clean up the mess that can be made by ignoring the rules."
This has happened in the past too often, and still happens, just to become
"immortal" as a person who described a species. This leaves great
responsability to editors of magazines and to those who review manuscripts.
After a while (but unfortunately only when damage is done) it becomes clear
which are the "good" journals, and which ones the bad.
The new Code provides some new rules which go along with making a name
available, see e.g. the introduction pp. xxvi - xxviii.

Gijs

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Rindsberg" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: Valid


> Well, if nothing else, this thread demonstrates (1) the necessity for
> standardized terms, and (2) the exaggerated sense of independence that
many
> taxonomists have. The tension between (1) and (2) neatly explains how so
> much ink can be spilled over so little.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
> Andrew K. Rindsberg
> Geological Survey of Alabama