I agree with jdmore that this isn’t a problem for taxonomists. What you are really asking for is a phenotype-based nomenclature. Can you get other field biologists to work with you to create a shared nomenclature?
You would need a grant to publish and maintain a “Phenotype Nomenclature” website showing how each term translates to current scientific nomenclature. So when a study referred to Mimulus aurantiacus[PN], a reader could look it up in your phenotype nomenclature and see that this term refers to a group of species consisting of: Diplacus aridus, D. longiflorus, D. aurantiacus . . . etc.
Phenotype-based names would be perfect for iNat. I personally as an editor and (very amateur) photographer would be glad to use them exclusively. But someone needs to get organizational sponsorship to produce such a bridge language.
i could see value in such a thing, but i think we can keep it nested in the linnaean taxonomy if taxonomists just pay mind to this and create appropriate sections and species groups when they publish. Maybe that’s a lost cause, but it seems preferable to creating a parallel taxonomy.
Or if we did go the route of making parallel phenotype based nomenclature i actually think iNat would be a really idea place to do something like that, nested within the Linnean classification somehow. But maybe it would make the devs pull their hair out or piss off taxonomists, i’m not sure.
Also i truly am sorry i come off as hating taxonomists or something. I really don’t. I jsut get frustrated because this problem gets minimized so heavily when i try to talk about it. Yes my communication style isn’t always great but… this problem is real! and it has nothing to do with lazy ecologists!