Yes, need to return to the original thread, GLOVAP. And I say they did nothing new nor remotely unethical. It goes with the territory of the challenge of writing a global flora. And without this or similar, iNAT would be in trouble. Naturally, they have to classify according to their opinions, which I regard as reasonably qualified, and they have reasonable INTERNAL checks and balances and rationales. I think they have stated, and it certainly is true, that given their large number of collaborators, these names were subjected to FAR MORE scrutiny than new names published in peer-reviewed journals. And one must presume that they are not trying to classify things WRONG, after all. In many cases, they had to valdily publish the names they prefer. The scientific rigor and peer review complaint was a red herring and a smokescreen. Mainly because the EXISTING names never were subjected to such rigor or review, many dating back to the 19th Century. As I indicated, the REAL reason for the complaint was that people felt that their “taxonomic territory” had been violated. One specific complaint in the ASPT letter was that GLOVAP “stole the thunder” from recent students, i.e., it denied them the posterity of seeing their OWN name as the author of a taxon. I plant to submit a proposal to the next IBC to REPLACE personal author names of taxa with hexavigesimal code, analogous to GenBank. The current format of personal author is unwieldy, author abbreviations very inconsistent historically, and most people do not understand what they mean in any case. So with a code, one can look up the author and the history, if they really care, which most of biology does not. Scientific publications only list taxon authors as a matter of convention. What information they contain would be conveyed EASIER, BETTER, and MORE COMPREHENSIBLY with a code.