>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